On Sat, Nov 09, 2019 at 01:27:16PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Should 'git add -p <newly-added-file>' do the same thing as 'git add -N > > <newly-added-file && git add -p <newly-added-file>'? > > Probably. > > I originally wrote "git add -i" with the intention that the > interactive mode is _the_ primary interface to the machinery, so the > expected way to work with a new file was "git add -i", tell the > command to add that <newly-added-file>, and do the "patch" thing > using the interactive subcommand to do so within the "git add -i" > session. > > Later people liked (only) the patch part, and "git add -p" (and > various "--patch" options that invoke "add -p" internally from other > commands like "checkout", "reset" were added) was born. I think > nobody thought things through when they did so. > > If I were designing "git add -p" from scratch and explicitly asked > not to do the other parts of the "--interactive" feature, I would > imagine "add -N && add -p" combination is what I would make it > mimic. > > Patches welcome, but you may want to check with Dscho as there is an > effort going on to reimplement the entire "add -i" machinery in C. Ah, this is a compelling point. I imagine the landscape will be fairly different when that effort is finished. >From the replies, it sounds like it's a favorable change, but it makes sense to wait on it considering the refactor to use C. Thanks, all. - Emily
