Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] improve interactive-patch

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:31:41 -0700

Phillip Wood <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Rubén
>
> On 26/03/2024 00:15, Rubén Justo wrote:
>> Let's reduce the verbosity in the interactive-patch process, in order to
>> make it less confusing.
>
> I think this is a good idea, I've left a few comments on the patches.

Thanks for your reviews.  You raised very good points, all of which
I agree with.  'r'edisplay may work well (and I wonder "r | less" or
piping the hunk display to anything in general would be a useful
future enhancement).  Response to an unrecognised command should
probably be a two-step process (a short "'h' is not understood. type
? for help" with list of commands upon request).

I however am unsure about omitting 'p' from the list when we did not
skip.  We do omit 'k' when we have NO previous hunk to go back to,
but that is because we cannot do it even if we were asked to and the
only possible outcome is an error message.  That is quite different
from 'p' where we can always show the current hunk when asked, even
if it is just after we have shown it already.