Re: [PATCH 1/2] add--interactive: ignore mode change in 'p'atch command

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:24:10AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

    similarity index 90%
    rename from gostak
    rename to doshes
    Stage the name change [y/n/a/d/j/J/?]?

I hadn't thought about renames. But I wonder if it really makes sense in
the context of a single path.

Yeah, but the user is really into microcommits, like "separate mode
change" thing really matters, maybe the user would want to make three
commits (1) chmod +x, (2) pure rename, and (3) content changes.

I personally think that is not worth it, so I am agreeing with you on the
"rename" one.

Even though your two patches make perfect sense at the philosophical level
and I very much like it, I doubt "separating mode change" is so useful
from the practical point of view for that matter.

I would even imagine that, if we did not have "add -p" before, and the
very initial implementation of it had started from the behaviour your two
patches bring in, and then a patch came to make it the current "not asking
about mode change separately and if the user chooses to add anything from
the patch hunks, stage the mode change along with it" behaviour, people
might even think that such a patch is an improvement in usability by
asking one less question.  I dunno.

quoted

By the way, why was it done as a new sub called from parse_diff() and not
as a part of parse_diff() itself?

Code clarity.

That I'd agree with very much.  Thanks for clarificaiton.