From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004791F670 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 18:18:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232606AbhJYSUn (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:20:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51290 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231512AbhJYSUk (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:20:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0184A16ADF2; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:18:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=LwzqI7nKi2X+kdwptcD/01daAXT33lnu3BLpPq +eKMo=; b=OVEnmHnHtYrLx2hpcwSzh7nymGQckyrC9SE6ikhaohmOyEwc3/RB6l ebMgWobKRfHxZ8C1fO/bjLHAETp7xnRyYybcVzQOkfm8M8ZmHaETL67RxDoMzZaJ pMUuzJ93WB0ZzIKdnzZjTKqO6HwWgczGHKcX7aWc7QxHevkONJqis= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE74716ADF1; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:18:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5477916ADED; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:18:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: David Aguilar Cc: Fernando Ramos , Git Mailing List , Seth House , levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com, rogi@skylittlesystem.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mergetools/vimdiff: add vimdiff4 merge tool variant References: <20211019212020.25385-1-greenfoo@u92.eu> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:18:14 -0700 In-Reply-To: (David Aguilar's message of "Sun, 24 Oct 2021 15:54:49 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EBDA0EAC-35BF-11EC-8EA3-98D80D944F46-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org David Aguilar writes: > I'm personally not opposed to the vimdiff4 variants (we already have 3 > others) but what I think might be missing is a bit of documentation > that documents the builtin tools and their variants. Hmph, are we encouraging everybody to add yet another variant? I wonder if we can stop at adding a single "vimdiffX" variant that takes the layout information (like the one this vimdiff4 passes to the underlying tool via the command line option) in a configuration variable and stop adding more variants, or is vim's specification of the layout we use here via the command line not flexible enough to serve all future needs? I also wonder if all the existing vimdiff variants can be done in terms of such a vimdiffX implementation. > Right now git-mergetool.txt includes config/mergetool.txt for > documenting its config variables. It might be worth having a common > "mergetools.txt" where the builtin tools and variants can be > documented and then we can include that file from both > git-mergetool.txt and git-difftool.txt. > > That would be a good place to write up the differences between the > variants, and the diagram you included in the commit message would be > helpful there as well. Yup, in any case, I do like the suggestion to document the variants. Thanks, both.