Re: git add -p with new file

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2016, 18:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20161213185653.ys3ig377zhmblncl@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq7f734qe0.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:48:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > I think the problem is just that "add -p" does not give the whole story
> > of what you might want to do before making a commit.
> 
> The same is shared by "git diff [HEAD]", by the way.  It is beyond
> me why people use "add -p", not "git diff [HEAD]", for the final
> sanity check before committing.  
> 
> Perhaps the latter is not advertised well enough?  "add -p" does not
> even page so it is not very useful way to check what is being added
> if you are adding a new file (unless you are doing a toy example to
> add a 7-line file).

I use "add -p" routinely for my final add-and-sanity-check, and it is certainly not because I don't know about "git diff". I think it's just nice to break it into bite-size chunks and sort them into "yes, OK" or "no, not yet" bins. The lack of paging isn't usually a problem, because this "add -p" is useful precisely when you have a lot of little changes spread across the code base.

I'd probably also run "git diff" if I wanted to look at something bigger. And I routinely use "git status", too, to see the full state of my tree.

To me they are all tools in the toolbox, and I can pick the one that works best in any given situation, or that I just feel like using that day.

Show 10 quoted lines

> >> Hm, "interactive.showUntracked" is a confusing name because "git add -i"
> >> (interactive) already handles untracked files.
> >
> > Sure, that was just meant for illustration. I agree there's probably a
> > better name.
> 
> "interactive.*" is not a sensible hierarchy to use, because things
> other than "add" can go interactive.
> 
> addPatch.showUntracked?

Hmm, I wonder if interactive.diffFilter was mis-named then. The description is written in such a way as to cover other possible interactive commands showing a diff.

It might be possible to do the same here: come up with a general option that _could_ cover new situations, but right now just applies here. Or maybe it would be too confusing.

TBH, I wasn't all that concerned with the name yet. Whoever writes the patch can figure it out, and _then_ we can all bikeshed it. :)

-Peff