From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-add--interactive: manual hunk editing mode Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:13:08 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <200805232221.45406.trast@student.ethz.ch> <200806090032.27516.trast@student.ethz.ch> <200806090746.22512.johan@herland.net> <20080609122938.GA12210@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Johan Herland , git@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Rast , Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 09 18:15:35 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K5k1o-0004as-QL for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:15:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751392AbYFIQOf (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:14:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750832AbYFIQOe (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:14:34 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34505 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750794AbYFIQOe (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:14:34 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jun 2008 16:14:31 -0000 Received: from pacific.mpi-cbg.de (EHLO [10.8.0.10]) [141.5.10.38] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 09 Jun 2008 18:14:31 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19PJChxMj1PgMuDPF32EIlC2v7RNGmvZCHP/1lJpx NXSvJMqwFRW6t+ X-X-Sender: gene099@racer In-Reply-To: <20080609122938.GA12210@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 07:46:22AM +0200, Johan Herland wrote: > > And I was hoping the right way to do it was to simply build the > interactive "e" command on top of Johannes' git-apply work. But I don't > think that quite makes sense. His work is about fixing up the hunk > header as we apply the patch, but a working "e" command in the hunk > selection should probably not actually apply, but simply split into two > hunks for the loop. Well, maybe I am silly, but I thought that the idea with add -i (e) was to split off the first part, ask the user if that should be applied, and then go on with the rest. But like I said, Junio convinced me that it makes not much sense to split somewhere else than common lines, and you have that already with the "s" command in add -i. In any case, I am happy with "add -e", even more so than I though I would be, and therefore I do not need add -i (e). Thus, I will just shut up and let you guys work it out. Ciao, Dscho