Re: [PATCH 3/3] git-gui: new config to control staging of untracked files

>On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 00:51, Pat Thoyts
><patthoyts@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> writes:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 08:47:50PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 20:34, Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> wrote:
>>>> > Here I am wondering whether we have a similar mechanism in git gui like
>>>> > in core git that makes yes,true,1 equivalents (and similar with other
>>>> > values) ?
>>>>
>>>> But it is not only yes,true,1 or no,false,0 its a tristate with the
>>>> third state 'ask'. For booleans, there is such functionality in git
>>>> gui. See is_config_true and is_config_false. Reusing these for this
>>>> tristate wouldn't work. The current check here is indeed very strict
>>>> and should be loosen by at least ignoring the case, surrounding
>>>> spaces, and allow also true/false. But also note, that this variable
>>>> can be set via the Options menu, so you can't mistype it.
>>>
>>>Well if using git config you can ;-). I just wanted to ask whether we
>>>may already have machinery which supports such tristate.
>>>If we do not I think the current "strict" configuration is fine. In most
>>>cases the user will use the gui itself to configure such behavior so
>>>thats no big deal.
>>>If someone needs that it can be added later on.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Heiko
>>>
>>
>> This set of 3 patches looks fine. I was a bit dubious of the new
>> phrasing for the ask condition but it is growing on me. I wonder it it
>> might be worth including the number of untracked files to be staged too
>> eg: "Stage 15 untracked files?"
>>
>>   set reply [ask_popup [mc "Stage %d untracked files?" \
>>                             [llength $untracked_paths]]]
>
>I thought about to list the untracked files in the dialog, but
>couldn't find a good template dialog for this. But the number is
>definitely worth I think.
>
>>
>> Loosening the check we can do using
>>  switch -glob -- [get_config gui.stageuntracked] {
>>    [Nn]* { set reply 0}
>>    [Yy]* { set reply 1}
>>    default { ... }
>>  }
>
>I think this is too loose ;-)