On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 11:03:10AM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
> I'm afraid I still don't think that changing the default is a good idea as
> it is often very difficult to correct a badly edited hunk.
This series isn't about how hard it is to fix a badly edited hunk.
> In [1] you say you discarded that idea because the wording was too verbose
Not really. I still believe that regaining the original intention of
"no" is a better option than adding new options to the interface.
I am not opposed to that change, I just think it's an unnecessary
complication.
A user who experiences problems with a badly edited hunk, edited by
themselves, will probably encounter similar issues as they would when
editing the original hunk. I think.
I don't think reconstructing a patch is a realistic (sensible)
scenario that we should be concerned about.
The small change in the message, in this iteration, adds a bit of
clarity for them, I think:
> > @@ -1286,11 +1287,17 @@ static int edit_hunk_loop(struct add_p_state *s,
> > * of the word "no" does not start with n.
> > */
> > res = prompt_yesno(s, _("Your edited hunk does not apply. "
> > - "Edit again (saying \"no\" discards!) "
> > + "Edit again (saying \"no\" discards your edits!) "
> > "[y/n]? "));
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/6f392446-10b4-4074-a993-97ac444275f8@xxxxxxxxx
