Re: incorrect range-diff output?

[Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>]

On 04/12, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> 
> > On 04/11, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > > Try
> > >
> > >     git range-diff from...to
> > >
> > > with those two branches from https://gitlab.com/pclouds/git.git. The
> > > interesting part is this
> > >
> > >       diff --git a/Documentation/gitcli.txt b/Documentation/gitcli.txt
> > >       --- a/Documentation/gitcli.txt
> > >     @@ -120,10 +111,11 @@
> > >         * linkgit:git-commit[1] to advance the current branch.
> > >
> > >      -  * linkgit:git-reset[1] and linkgit:git-checkout[1] (with
> > >     -+  * linkgit:git-reset[1] and linkgit:git-restore[1] (with
> > >     -     pathname parameters) to undo changes.
> > >     +-    pathname parameters) to undo changes.
> > >     ++  * linkgit:git-restore[1] to undo changes.
> > >
> > >         * linkgit:git-merge[1] to merge between local branches.
> > >     +
> > >
> > > This particular hunk comes from giteveryday.txt, not gitcli.txt. And
> > > the b/Documentation/gitcli.txt line is also missing.
> >
> > I think the output here is technically correct, even though it is very
> > misleading.  range-diff doesn't currently show the filenames of the
> > diff that changed, which makes this a bit hard to read.
> 
> True. In the spirit of the "funcname" feature of our `git diff` command,
> we could add some (abbreviated) form of the corresponding `diff` lines
> (maybe just the `a/` filename? Or maybe the `a/` file name, prefixed by
> `-` or `+`, and if the `b/` filename is different, `old->new`? With
> `/dev/null` substituted by `(new)` or `(deleted)`?).

Yeah something like this is what I ended up doing.  Except I was a bit
more verbose, so the filename would be prefixed with "modified file",
"new file", "deleted file" or "renamed file".  Since this doesn't need
to be machine readable in any way, I felt like that might be easiest
to consume for humans.