Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] Start to implement a built-in version of `git add --interactive`

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Besides, I really hope that this would be only temporary,...
>
> Oh, no question about it.  This should be temporary knob.
>
> I still do worry about giving a bad example for others to copy.
> People tend to copy & paste without thinking.  Either we come up
> with and use a two-level name, or we add a comment to explain to
> developers (not users---as this is merely a temporary thing) why
> they should never follow suit using three-level names for things
> like this one written in big red letters, or something, then perhaps
> we won't have to worry about too much?  I dunno.
>
> >> > +	if (use_builtin_add_i == 1 && !patch_mode)
> >> > +		return !!run_add_i(the_repository, pathspec);
> >>
> >> I am hoping that eventually "add -p" will also be routed to the new
> >> codepath.  Would it make sense to have "&& !patch_mode" here,
> >> especially at this step where run_add_i() won't do anything useful
> >> anyway yet?
> >
> > The `&& !patch_mode` is here to allow for a gradual adoption of the
> > built-in parts. ...
>
> Ah, so "add.usebuiltin = interactive patch" can (eventually) choose
> to use the C code for both while "add.usebuiltin = interactive"
> would not use it for the patch mode, or something?  Or even
>
> 	add.interactive.usebuiltin = yes

>
> perhaps?
>
> > Of course, eventually this will be handled.
>
> Yup, again, the knob is merely temporary.