Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] interactive -p: add new `--auto-advance` flag
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2026-02-13 23:04:58
Abraham Samuel Adekunle [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
When using the interactive add, reset, stash or checkout machinery, we do not have the option of reworking with a file when selecting hunks, because the session automatically advances to the next file or ends if we have just one file. Introduce the flag `--auto-advance` which auto advances by default, when interactively selecting patches with the '--patch' option. However, the `--no-auto-advance` option does not auto advance, thereby allowing users the option to rework with files. Signed-off-by: Abraham Samuel Adekunle <redacted> --- add-interactive.c | 4 ++++ add-interactive.h | 5 +++-- builtin/add.c | 4 ++++ builtin/checkout.c | 7 +++++++ builtin/reset.c | 4 ++++ builtin/stash.c | 8 ++++++++ t/t9902-completion.sh | 1 + 7 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/add-interactive.c b/add-interactive.c index 95ec5a89f8..c3a36cd11f 100644 --- a/add-interactive.c +++ b/add-interactive.c@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ void init_add_i_state(struct add_i_state *s, struct repository *r, s->r = r; s->context = -1; s->interhunkcontext = -1; + s->auto_advance = 1; s->use_color_interactive = check_color_config(r, "color.interactive");@@ -124,6 +125,8 @@ void init_add_i_state(struct add_i_state *s, struct repository *r, die(_("%s cannot be negative"), "--inter-hunk-context"); s->interhunkcontext = add_p_opt->interhunkcontext; } + if (!add_p_opt->auto_advance) + s->auto_advance = 0; }
I am confused. Why do we need above two hunks in this function? Wouldn't it suffice to do s->auto_advance = add_p_opt->auto_advance; in the first hunk, instead of assigning 1 to it?
quoted hunk
struct add_i_state { struct repository *r;@@ -28,7 +29,7 @@ struct add_i_state { int use_single_key; char *interactive_diff_filter, *interactive_diff_algorithm; - int context, interhunkcontext; + int context, interhunkcontext, auto_advance;
Please don't do this. The original is already bad to have two members on the same line, but is tolerated as they represent somewhat related concepts. The auto_advance member has nothing to do with these two.