Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> 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.
