Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> I _think_ the no-index mode was primarily for those who want to use
>>> our diff as a replacement for GNU and other diffs, and from that
>>> point of view, I'd favour not doing the "comparing symbolic link?
>>> We'll show the difference between the link contents, not target"
>>> under no-index mode myself.
>>
>> If I read this correctly,...
>
> Now I re-read it and I can see it can be read either way.
>
> By "link contents" in "comparing symbolic link? We'll show the
> difference between the link contents, not target", I meant the
> result you get from readlink(2), which will result in
>
>     diff --git a/RelNotes b/RelNotes
>     index c02235fe8c..b54330f7cd 120000
>     --- a/RelNotes
>     +++ b/RelNotes
>     @@ -1 +1 @@
>     -Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.2.txt
>     \ No newline at end of file
>     +Documentation/RelNotes/2.11.0.txt
>     \ No newline at end of file
>
> not the comparison between the files that are link targets,
> i.e. hypothetical
>
>     diff --git a/RelNotes b/RelNotes
>     index c4d4397023..7a1fce7720 100644
>     --- a/Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.2.txt
>     +++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/2.11.0.txt
>     @@ -1,41 +1,402 @@
>     -Git v2.10.2 Release Notes
>     -=========================
>     +Git 2.11 Release Notes
>     ...
>
> And I'd favour *NOT* doing that if we are using our diff as a

Again, this can be read both ways.  By "that" on the above line I
meant "the former".

> replacement for GNU and other diffs in "no-index" mode.  Which leads
> to ...
>
>>> That is a lot closer to the diff other people implemented, not ours.
>>> Hence the knee-jerk reaction I gave in
>>> 
>>> http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqinrt1zcx.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com
>
> ... this conclusion, which is consistent with ...
>
>>
>> Let me quote the knee-jerk reaction:
>>
>>> My knee-jerk reaction is:
>>>
>>>  * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks
>>>    behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off.
>
> ... this one.
>
> But notice "I _think_" in the first sentence you quoted.  That is a
> basic assumption that leads to the conclusion, and that assumption
> is not a fact.  Maybe users do *not* want the "no-index" mode as a
> replacement for GNU and other diffs, in which case comparing the
> result of readlink(2) even in no-index mode might have merit.  I
> just didn't think it was the case.

And "I just didn't think it was the case", when fully spelt out, is
"I just didn't think that the assumption was incorrect."