Re: [PATCH] add-interactive: shortcut to add hunk and quit

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 19, 2011, 19:25 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7h9m7arx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110519110259.GA11507@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:16:51PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
>
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > 
>> > I think "single-key" was a poorly designed attempt to improve productivity
>> > the ("y" <RET>)*5 into "y"*5
>> 
>> Actually for me it more often is
>> 
>>   y RET n RET *think* y RET s RET n RET ...
>
> Yeah. I personally find the concept of "5y" crazy; how do you know that
> it is 5, and not 4 or 6, if you haven't yet seen them?

That one is surprisingly easy to answer. Before I decide to use "incremental", I've seen the diff at least once but more often number of times. I know where things are when I start my incremental sessions, and "5" (just an example) is something I would use when I think I know there are 8 or 9, i.e. a number that will surely undershoot but will get me to the end sooner. An alternative would be something akin to "/<pattern>" but that adds, instead of skips.

> I think a confirmation question is a bad idea. It helps with
> fat-fingering, but not much else.

I agree, but fat-fingering is a real problem single-key mode introduces, and that is why I suggested a similar final confirmation only for 'a' in the single-key mode.

Show 5 quoted lines

> I think a much better safety valve is to store the user's worktree state
> that we are about to destroy. Then when they accidentally erase
> something, whether they realize it immediately, or even 5 minutes later,
> it is recoverable. And in the common case where everything goes well,
> they needn't be bothered at all.

Intereting.

Where does the data go (perhaps to "stash create", not "stash save"), and where would we plug that in ("checkout -p" codepath only)?