"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]>
writes:
> +add.interactive.useBuiltin::
I am not sure if three-level name is a good thing to use here.
If we have end-user controllable (like branch or remote names)
unbounded number of subcommand/submode to "add", and "interactive"
is merely one of it, then three-level name is a perfect fit, but
otherwise, not.
> @@ -185,6 +186,14 @@ int run_add_interactive(const char *revision, const char
> *patch_mode,
> {
> int status, i;
> struct argv_array argv = ARGV_ARRAY_INIT;
> + int use_builtin_add_i =
> + git_env_bool("GIT_TEST_ADD_I_USE_BUILTIN", -1);
> + if (use_builtin_add_i < 0)
> + git_config_get_bool("add.interactive.usebuiltin",
> + &use_builtin_add_i);
> +
> + 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?
> @@ -319,6 +328,7 @@ static int add_config(const char *var, const char *value,
> void *cb)
> ignore_add_errors = git_config_bool(var, value);
> return 0;
> }
> +
> return git_default_config(var, value, cb);
> }
Good addition while at it.
