Re: [PATCH 1/2] add -p: mark split hunks as undecided

> phillip.wood123@gmail.com writes:
> 
>>>> Currently after a selected hunk is split we always prompt the user to
>>>> make a decision on the first mini-hunk even though it is marked as
>>>> selected when it is split. This seems inconsistent and confused me
>>>> when I first tried splitting a selected hunk which is why I wrote this
>>>> patch.
>>> Hmph, so there is an obvious alternative "fix" to the inconsistency,
>>> i.e., after splitting, move to the first unselected hunk?
>>
>> We could do that but I think it would be even more confusing than the
>> current behavior as it would make it harder to change the state of the
>> mini-hunks. At least with the current behavior one can use 'J' to move
>> through them immediately after splitting the original hunk. If we move
>> to the next undecided hunk one has to know where the newly-created
>> mini-hunks are relative to that.
> 
> True.  After all, going back to an already selected hunk and then
> splitting the hunk is a clear indication that the user wants to
> visit some of them to change their state.  Moving them back to
> "undecided" (not "deselected") instead of leaving them marked as
> "selected" (which is the current behaviour) looks like a better
> behaviour and I wish I knew about the possibility in late 2006 when
> I added the hunk splitting.
> 
>> I'm not sure either. I dislike the way it works at the moment and find
>> it confusing but if there are a lot of people relying on it then I'd
>> be reluctant to change it.
> 
> I share the sentiment, especially the latter.
> 
>> Unfortunately we don't have any way to know
>> if anyone is relying on the current behavior without changing it and
>> seeing if anyone complains. Given it is a bit of a corner case I'm not
>> sure whether it is worth spending much more time on it.
> 
> Given our user base has grown quite a bit over the years, it almost
> is a given that any change to existing behaviour is a regression to
> somebody.  Certainly a safe material for Git 3.0 but I do not know
> if it is safe enough for 2.50 for example.  The strategy to leave it
> longer in 'next' did not work well to catch potential issues for
> another topic during this cycle, but we could try it out again.

>> I can see the problem and asking for conformation before quitting
>> would have been nice if we'd done it from the start. I'm not sure it
>> is worth the disruption of changing it when one can re-run "reset/add
>> -p" quite easily though.
> 
> Yup.  That matches my assessment of it.  I brought it up because I
> see this "selection should not stick across splitting" falls into
> the same "it would have been nice if it were that way from the
> beginning" bucket.
> 
>> I guess we could add an opt-in cofing that
>> eventually becomes the default.
> 
> I'd prefer not to add configuration for tweaking such a small thing
> (this applies to "should selection stick across splitting?", too).

>> While we're talking about tangential issues it would be nice if when a
>> user revisited a hunk we told them its current state. At the moment
>> there is no way to tell if a hunk has been selected or not.
> 
> The user came back with 'J' or 'K' probably because the hunk was
> skipped in their earlier navigation with 'k' or 'j', so users may be
> using it as a workaround, but I agree there should be an indicator
> for the (unselected, selected, undecided).
> 
>> Related to that the help for 'J' and 'K' talk about leaving the
>> current hunk undecided when what they actually do is leave the
>> current state unchanged.
> 
> Nice catch.
> 
> Thanks.