Re: [PATCH 3/4] add: introduce '--resolved' option

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Michael Montalbo [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 2:58 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

-       if (addremove && take_worktree_changes)
-               die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "-A", "-u");
+       die_for_incompatible_opt3(take_worktree_changes, "-u/--update",
+                                 0 <= addremove_explicit, "-A/--all",
+                                 add_resolved, "--resolved");

Should this be "0 < addremove_explicit"?

Thanks for noticing.  '0 <=' is absolutely bogus.

I wonder if we should simply write 'addremove', as this part of the
change is about rewriting the open-coded die_for_incompatible_opt2()
in the original and using die_for_incompatible_opt3() to add a third
option.

Not really.  I forgot that addremove is futzed before this part when
add_resolved is present, so using addremove would mean both
addremove and add_resolved are on, mistakenly complaining about -A
that the user never gave us.

So "0 < addremove_explicit" that is.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh b/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000000..f88e3f413e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t2207-add-resolved.sh

Does this new test file need a t/meson.build entry?

Yeah, it shows that I rarely exercise meson build.

Thanks.