Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I think "single-key" was a poorly designed attempt to improve productivity
> the ("y" <RET>)*5 into "y"*5
Actually for me it more often is
y RET n RET *think* y RET s RET n RET ...
> while sacrificing the safety net when you
> are trying to pick and decide one by one (like the accident Thomas had
> recently during "checkout -p"). If I can say "5y", think for half a second
> to make sure I typed what I meant, and <RET>, to apply 5 upcoming hunks in
> one go, I think I would be as efficient as the productivity optimization
> the single-key offers, while still protecting me from mistakes made by fat
> fingers.
There's nothing stopping us from implementing number prefixes in
single-key mode, since numbers do not have any meaning yet.
After my little accident I'm also considering an (optional?) safety
question at the end when in checkout -p mode, since it's inherently
destructive. Of course that first requires changing the whole
operation to be atomic.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html