On 03/27, Eric Sunshine wrote:

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Thomas Gummerer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Thanks Eric for the review of the previous round and Duy and Junio for
additional comments.
This round should address all of Eric's comments from the previous round.

Thanks, it appears to cover my review comments from the previous
round. I do have some additional comments on this round (which I could
have raised with the previous round if I had thought of them at the
time).

quoted

As explained in more detail in a reply to the review comment directly,
I did not add an enum to 'struct add_opts', for 'force_new_branch' and
'checkout_existing_branch', but instead removed 'force_new_branch'
from the struct as it's not required.

Makes sense. In fact, I had thoughts along these lines during your
previous dwim-ery series. See my comments on patch 3/6.

quoted

The rest of the updates are mainly in the user facing messages,
documentation and one added test.
Interdiff below:

The interdiff looks sane. Unfortunately, due to UI regressions, I'm
having second thoughts about whether this series is going in the right
direction. See my comments on patch 2/6.

Thanks for your reviews of this series!  As I mentioned in the reply
there I'm going to see whether or not I can fix those regressions
(hopefully I can :)), and send a re-roll.