Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Besides, I really hope that this would be only temporary,... Oh, no question about it. This should be temporary knob. I still do worry about giving a bad example for others to copy. People tend to copy & paste without thinking. Either we come up with and use a two-level name, or we add a comment to explain to developers (not users---as this is merely a temporary thing) why they should never follow suit using three-level names for things like this one written in big red letters, or something, then perhaps we won't have to worry about too much? I dunno. >> > + if (use_builtin_add_i == 1 && !patch_mode) >> > + return !!run_add_i(the_repository, pathspec); >> >> I am hoping that eventually "add -p" will also be routed to the new >> codepath. Would it make sense to have "&& !patch_mode" here, >> especially at this step where run_add_i() won't do anything useful >> anyway yet? > > The `&& !patch_mode` is here to allow for a gradual adoption of the > built-in parts. ... Ah, so "add.usebuiltin = interactive patch" can (eventually) choose to use the C code for both while "add.usebuiltin = interactive" would not use it for the patch mode, or something? Or even add.interactive.usebuiltin = yes add.patch.usebuiltin = no perhaps? > Of course, eventually this will be handled. Yup, again, the knob is merely temporary.
