On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:


>
> -diff.indentHeuristic::
>  diff.compactionHeuristic::
>         Set one of these options to `true` to enable one of two
>         experimental heuristics that shift diff hunk boundaries to

We would need to reword this as well, as there will be only one heuristic left?


> --- a/xdiff/xdiffi.c
> +++ b/xdiff/xdiffi.c
> @@ -906,22 +906,7 @@ int xdl_change_compact(xdfile_t *xdf, xdfile_t *xdfo, 
> long flags) {
>                                 if (group_previous(xdfo, &go))
>                                         xdl_bug("group sync broken sliding to 
> match");
>                         }
> -               } else if ((flags & XDF_COMPACTION_HEURISTIC) && blank_lines) 
> {
> -                       /*
> -                        * Compaction heuristic: if it is possible to shift 
> the
> -                        * group to make its bottom line a blank line, do so.
> -                        *
> -                        * As we already shifted the group forward as far as
> -                        * possible in the earlier loop, we only need to 
> handle
> -                        * backward shifts, not forward ones.
> -                        */
> -                       while (!is_blank_line(xdf->recs[g.end - 1], flags)) {
> -                               if (group_slide_up(xdf, &g, flags))
> -                                       xdl_bug("blank line disappeared");
> -                               if (group_previous(xdfo, &go))
> -                                       xdl_bug("group sync broken sliding to 
> blank line");
> -                       }
> -               } else if (flags & XDF_INDENT_HEURISTIC) {
> +               } else if (flags & XDF_COMPACTION_HEURISTIC) {
>                         /*
>                          * Indent heuristic: a group of pure add/delete lines

This comment may need adjustment as well (though we could go without)

>                          * implies two splits, one between the end of the 
> "before"

Reply via email to