Re: [PATCH] add: remove interactive mode

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 5, 2026, 16:11 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqh5l8sg2y.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAC2QwmL2HSzJEb5hPbukNdqBzvMd=6ObiDrty+6T9tZ0otmogg@mail.gmail.com>

Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com> writes:

Show 28 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 10:50 PM shrimech <eddinen77@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Remove the --interactive (-i) option from git add and drop
>> its associated interactive-mode documentation.
>>
>> The patch mode (--patch/-p) remains available for interactively
>> selecting hunks to stage.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: shrimech <eddinen77@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think this commit message is meaningful according to
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches[1]:
>
>     The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:
>
>     . explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong
>       with the current code without the change.
>
>     . justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the
>       result with the change is better.
>
>     . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.
>
>     . records the resolution of design or viability concerns raised by the
>       community during the review, if any, ensuring the historical record
>       explains why the chosen approach was accepted over alternatives.
>
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/SubmittingPatches

More importantly, a breaking change that will negatively affect existing users' workflows needs to be accompanied by a much better justification than a typical opt-in addition.

I could send a patch to remove 'git add' altogether, claiming that "the diff feature remains available so 'git diff' will still work", and yet that is not a sane justification for removing 'git add'. Justifying the removal of '-i' based on the availability of '-p' is just as bogus as that.

Of course, none of "I have not heard of this feature", "I have not used this feature", "I no longer use this feature", and "I do not like this feature" is good enough. "I have not met anyone who uses this feature" used to be viable twenty years ago, but not anymore.

Thanks.