Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #03; Mon, 5)

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

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

>>  "git diff" has been taught to optionally paint new lines that are
>>  the same as deleted lines elsewhere differently from genuinely new
>>  lines.
>>
>>  Are we happy with these changes?
>
> I advertised this series e.g. for reviewing Brandons
> repo object refactoring series and used it myself to inspect
> some patches there[1]. I am certainly happy (but biased) with
> what we have available there.
>
> Jacob intended to use this series
> for review as well, but has given no opinion yet.
>
> You seemed to have used it for js/blame-lib?
>
> --
> Those patches had a wide reviewer audience cc'd,
> so I would think people are aware of this series.

I tried to, yes.  I haven't had a chance to see how well the current
iteration fares "does the externally-visible goal make sense?" test.

I do not think I saw a negative "an approach to show this kind of
output would not be useful" reaction, so I assume at least people
would want an alternative output format that would help reviewing a
change that moves blocks of lines around.

In any case, that is not a review.  A patch series wanting to do a
good thing, and people agreeing that the externally visible effect
it produces matches that good thing, is one thing.  A review that
makes sure the code achieves the externally visible effect well
(e.g. without overly inefficient algorithm, without buffer overflows
or underflows, off-by-ones, etc.) is another thing, and I haven't
seen anybody going with fine toothed comb to do that kind of review,
hence my "are we happy?" inquiry.