From: Mark Abraham <mark.j.abraham@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-add--interactive.perl: Permit word-based diff
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:12:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMNuMATdbhgydx5R0+OgSECqxs9tYgwqEjMuXq-0LV8fNaRWZw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130618172300.GA3557@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:22:16AM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
>
>> [I don't seem to have received a copy of the original mail, so I can
>> only guess...]
>
> Yes, the original doesn't seem to have made it to the list. Sorry, I
> don't have a copy (I am in the habit of deleting direct mails that are
> cc'd to the list, as I keep a separate list archive).
>
> Mark, did you happen to send an HTML mail? The list will silently
> reject such mail.
Yes, that was probably it. I tried to find a gmail configuration, but
I now discover it is done per-email, not globally. Apologies. I have
forwarded the original to Thomas, but based on current feedback, it
seems not worth re-sending the original mail to the list. See below.
>> > Note that the number of lines in your --word-diff=color hunk and the
>> > actual diff will not necessarily be the same. What happens if I split a
>> > hunk with your patch?
>>
>> If it's actually what you hint at, there's another problem: the word
>> diff might not even have the same number of hunks. For example, a
>> long-standing bug (or feature, depending on POV) of word-diff is that it
>> does not take opportunities to completely drop hunks that did not make
>> any word-level changes.
>
> Yeah, I didn't even think of that.
>
> In general, I think one can assume 1-to-1 correspondence between whole
> regular diffs and whole word-diffs, but not below that (i.e., neither a
> correspondence between hunks nor between lines).
>
> With something like contrib/diff-highlight, you get some decoration, and
> can assume a 1-to-1 line correspondence.
My choice of "permit" in the description was not best. My
implementation showed a word-based diff, but preserved the existing
mechanism for actually applying the hunk. I understand the way
colorization in git-add--interactive.perl works right now is to
colorize one version to display and use another - I think I preserved
that. I intended to permit the user to choose to show a word-based
diff of a patch during interactive add.
> However, I think that when reviewing text (especially re-wrapped
> paragraphs) that word-diff can be much easier to read, _because_ it
> throws away the line correspondence. To be correct, though, I think we
> would have to simply show the whole word-diff for a file and say "is
> this OK?". Which sort of defeats the purpose of "add -p" as a hunk
> selector (you could just as easily run "git diff --color-words foo" and
Hmm, I will have to re-consider the implications on that kind of
workflow. Thanks!
> "git add foo"). But it does save keystrokes if your workflow is to
> simply "add -p" everything to double-check it before adding.
Yes, that was what I was aiming to make easier.
> So I dunno. I could see myself using it, but I certainly wouldn't want a
> config variable that turns it on all the time (which is what the
> original patch did).
Good point. What I think I really want is "git add
--interactive=color" (with or without --patch) to permit the user to
choose to see the (colorized) word-based diff when they want one. I
now see that the config file approach in my proposed patch doesn't go
close enough to that to be worth considering further.
I think a proper implementation of the above command would have to
* add something to builtin_add_options in builtin/add.c,
* set a new static variable in add.c, and
* extend the calling logic for interactive_add() and/or
run_add_interactive() accordingly,
so that the perl script can get the user's choice on the command line
and not from a config file. And only respond when colorization is
configured.
Does --patch=color, --interactive=color or adding new option
--color-words make more sense?
I'll have a think about that and get back to you guys.
Thanks!
Mark
> -Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-18 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAMNuMARruu+1=kny=g5O1MoxCXuoT3BHdSEEPSqvyn2t2JsAYg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-06-18 6:31 ` [PATCH] git-add--interactive.perl: Permit word-based diff Jeff King
2013-06-18 7:22 ` Thomas Rast
2013-06-18 17:23 ` Jeff King
2013-06-18 21:12 ` Mark Abraham [this message]
2013-06-18 22:47 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAMNuMATdbhgydx5R0+OgSECqxs9tYgwqEjMuXq-0LV8fNaRWZw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mark.j.abraham@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=trast@inf.ethz.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).