Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:16:51PM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>
> Yeah. I personally find the concept of "5y" crazy; how do you know that
> it is 5, and not 4 or 6, if you haven't yet seen them?
That one is surprisingly easy to answer. Before I decide to use
"incremental", I've seen the diff at least once but more often number of
times. I know where things are when I start my incremental sessions, and
"5" (just an example) is something I would use when I think I know there
are 8 or 9, i.e. a number that will surely undershoot but will get me
to the end sooner. An alternative would be something akin to "/<pattern>"
but that adds, instead of skips.
> I think a confirmation question is a bad idea. It helps with
> fat-fingering, but not much else.
I agree, but fat-fingering is a real problem single-key mode introduces,
and that is why I suggested a similar final confirmation only for 'a' in
the single-key mode.
> I think a much better safety valve is to store the user's worktree state
> that we are about to destroy. Then when they accidentally erase
> something, whether they realize it immediately, or even 5 minutes later,
> it is recoverable. And in the common case where everything goes well,
> they needn't be bothered at all.
Intereting.
Where does the data go (perhaps to "stash create", not "stash save"), and
where would we plug that in ("checkout -p" codepath only)?
--
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