Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Victor Toni <victor.toni@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> I think the implementor chose the first interpretation. The "drop" > >> insn is a relatively recent invention, and back when it was missing > >> from the vocabulary, I do not think it was possible to say " discard > >> all the rest" without emptying the todo list, so that design is > >> understandable. > >> > >> Now we have the "drop" verb, the latter interpretation becomes > >> possible without making it impossible for the user to express the > >> former. It might be a good idea to > >> > >> (1) save away the original before allowing --edit-todo to edit, > >> > >> (2) open the editor, and > >> > >> (3) when getting an empty buffer back, go back to step (2) using > >> the back-up made in step (1). > >> > >> Either way, the todo list editor buffer can have additional comment > >> instructing what happens when the buffer is emptied. > >> > > Personally I would like to see your approach (1,2,3) implemented > > because it is not destructive. If the user wants to achieve something > > different he can retry. > > Obviously I agree that the approach would be nicer than the status > quo. It would not be as trivial as a microproject, but would be a > good bite-sized starter-task for those aspiring developers who want > to dip their toes in the water to start hacking on the codebase ;-) > Nice try ;) Speaking of toes ... I'm currently involved in another project from tip to toe. I would like to come back to your offer sometime next year when I've completed the other one. Especially since I'd have to polish up my buried C skills... C didn't get GC lately, did it? ;)
