From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:25:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] add-interactive: shortcut to add hunk and quit Message-ID: <7v7h9m7arx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110519110259.GA11507@sigill.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > 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" )*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 "/" 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. > 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)?