# [PATCH 0/2] add--interactive: better mode change handling

2 messages from 2008-03-27 to 2008-03-27. Participants: Jeff King, Wincent Colaiuta.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/12888

## Jeff King, 2008-03-27 07:29

Subject: [PATCH 0/2] add--interactive: better mode change handling
Message-ID: <20080327072931.GA22444@coredump.intra.peff.net>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080327072931.GA22444%40coredump.intra.peff.net

```
This was spawned by a bug report from Jörg about "git add -i"'s handling
of mode changes. I don't think it's actually a bug, but rather a feature
request, and as such should happen post-1.5.5.

The two patches are:

  [1/2] add--interactive: ignore mode change in 'p'atch command
  [2/2] add--interactive: allow user to choose mode update

Actually, you might argue that 1/2 _is_ a bugfix, though not quite the
same one that was reported.  I don't actually like the behavior after
just 1/2 is applied, but I split the changes to be more readable.

There may potentially be a "[3/2] change the name of the 'p'atch
command" since it is now not just about the patch (actually, since git
patches _do_ include mode changes, it maybe is appropriate). Wincent
suggested "pick" which I think is reasonable. I'm not planning on doing
such a 3/2, but I'm sure some industrious soul can make arguments for or
against changing the name. I will let them handle the ensuing bikeshed
jamboree.

-Peff

```

## Wincent Colaiuta, 2008-03-27 08:34

Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add--interactive: better mode change handling
Message-ID: <C96B3392-9B17-4703-A4BC-250A70108924@wincent.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/C96B3392-9B17-4703-A4BC-250A70108924%40wincent.com
In-Reply-To: <20080327072931.GA22444@coredump.intra.peff.net>

```
El 27/3/2008, a las 8:29, Jeff King escribió:

> There may potentially be a "[3/2] change the name of the 'p'atch
> command" since it is now not just about the patch (actually, since git
> patches _do_ include mode changes, it maybe is appropriate). Wincent
> suggested "pick" which I think is reasonable. I'm not planning on  
> doing
> such a 3/2, but I'm sure some industrious soul can make arguments  
> for or
> against changing the name. I will let them handle the ensuing bikeshed
> jamboree.

I don't really want to participate in such a jamboree either, but I  
will add this one last comment that I should have mentioned in my  
previous email: one thing to bear in mind when considering changing  
the subcommand name is that "git add" itself has a "--patch" option  
since a couple of releases ago, and that means that changing the  
subcommand name either means introducing a mismatch between the option  
name and subcommand name, or going through a deprecate/rename cycle  
for the option name too, which we just introduced.

I don't really care either way. My muscle memory is trained for  
"patch" at this point, but changing wouldn't be a problem either.

In any case, your patches 1 and 2 look pretty sane to me.

Cheers,
Wincent

```