From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6EF1F461 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:04:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387831AbfHWQEZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:04:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:62805 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732458AbfHWQEZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:04:25 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260CA7929D; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:04:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=3p+tacjXW9ME8dlR1qYbS7bQ1O4=; b=KiH84w D9d3ZuyfzPJj9x2VuHA7Es4y96jTu6mg7PCA4TeeP1sVOh77ghy/kHb+U4hMV9Jh hjzBdAtlRPPKmzNXtAgLmRGRZKgcdJHzNnOiguZxfwlHyhI2VQeA2NIriAcxIGF/ T6gj9odVoEKLhs7wAjse1H+LkLFemsfrhtGgA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=o4IPyWJU/BLkEnst6Oj/YBpTyOCn0jMa xnXDnjzRwnh0JpdS1XcUoYVA7XHfm0PmjRs96sNBT9u1BWfyFLgfEHZIW5E2FHB5 ECAOBLxw8CarLJ8SYxpN3yl/IuEM7l1MJ/WPvwkRAv1+hwqLKFsBDh4DxshvJyvv j7GL4XuumZ0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB2A7929C; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:04:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D1B57929B; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:04:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Bert Wesarg Cc: Pratyush Yadav , Git Mailing List , Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] git-gui: Add ability to revert selected hunks and lines References: <20190819214110.26461-1-me@yadavpratyush.com> <20190822220107.4153-1-me@yadavpratyush.com> <20190822225143.3blolae3f65z6zqq@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:04:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Bert Wesarg's message of "Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:04:14 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AA749BCA-C5BF-11E9-BC04-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Bert Wesarg writes: > The thing is, that the partial revert "just don't happen by accident". > Here are the minimum user actions needed to get to this dialog: > > 1. whole-file revert > > - do a Ctrl+J, more or less anywhere in the GUI > > 2. hunk revert/revert one unselected line > > - right click anywhere in the diff pane (thats around 60% of the window area) > - move the mouse pointer down 3/4 menu items > - click this menu item > > 3. partially revert selected lines > > - select some content in the diff pane by starting by pressing and > holding a left click > - end the selection by releasing the left click > - move the mouse pointer down 3/4 menu items > - click this menu item > > Thats always at least 2 user actions more than the whole-file revert. > Thus this cannot happen by accident quite easily in comparison to the > whole-file revert. And thats the reason why this dialog exists, from > my point of view. > > I can see the need to disable the dialog for the whole-file revert, > and IIRC that was also requested a long time ago on this list. But I > don't see a reason to have this dialog also for the partial reverts as > a safety measure. Thanks for walking us readers through your thought process.