Re: [PATCH 2/7] built-in add -p: implement the "stash" and "reset" patch modes

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> > diff --git a/add-interactive.h b/add-interactive.h
> > index 3defa2ff3d..c278f3e26f 100644
> > --- a/add-interactive.h
> > +++ b/add-interactive.h
> > @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ int run_add_i(struct repository *r, const struct pathspec *ps);
> >
> >  enum add_p_mode {
> >  	ADD_P_STAGE,
> > +	ADD_P_STASH,
> > +	ADD_P_RESET,
>
> As I mentioned in my review on the previous step, ADD_P_ADD would be
> more descriptive of what is going on when listed together with STASH
> and RESET here.

I made the suggested change.

> > +static struct patch_mode patch_mode_reset_head = {
> > +	.diff = { "diff-index", "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.apply = { "-R", "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.apply_check = { "-R", "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.is_reverse = 1,
> > +	.index_only = 1,
> > +	.prompt_mode = {
> > +		N_("Unstage mode change [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +		N_("Unstage deletion [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +		N_("Unstage this hunk [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +	},
> > +	.edit_hunk_hint = N_("If the patch applies cleanly, the edited hunk "
> > +			     "will immediately be marked for unstaging."),
> > +	.help_patch_text =
> > +		N_("y - unstage this hunk\n"
> > +		   "n - do not unstage this hunk\n"
> > +		   "q - quit; do not unstage this hunk or any of the remaining "
> > +			"ones\n"
> > +		   "a - unstage this hunk and all later hunks in the file\n"
> > +		   "d - do not unstage this hunk or any of the later hunks in "
> > +			"the file\n"),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct patch_mode patch_mode_reset_nothead = {
> > +	.diff = { "diff-index", "-R", "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.apply = { "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.apply_check = { "--cached", NULL },
> > +	.is_reverse = 0,
> > +	.index_only = 1,
> > +	.prompt_mode = {
> > +		N_("Apply mode change to index [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +		N_("Apply deletion to index [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +		N_("Apply this hunk to index [y,n,q,a,d%s,?]? "),
> > +	},
> > +	.edit_hunk_hint = N_("If the patch applies cleanly, the edited hunk "
> > +			     "will immediately be marked for applying."),
> > +	.help_patch_text =
> > +		N_("y - apply this hunk to index\n"
> > +		   "n - do not apply this hunk to index\n"
> > +		   "q - quit; do not apply this hunk or any of the remaining "
> > +			"ones\n"
> > +		   "a - apply this hunk and all later hunks in the file\n"
> > +		   "d - do not apply this hunk or any of the later hunks in "
> > +			"the file\n"),
> > +};
>
> Interesting that "reset to HEAD" and "reset to non-HEAD" would have
> to swap the direction to make it feel more natural to the users.
> This is nothing new---just re-discovering that it is/was interesting.

Indeed. It matches the intuition, but looks incongruent.

Ciao,
Dscho