Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> I _think_ the no-index mode was primarily for those who want to use >>> our diff as a replacement for GNU and other diffs, and from that >>> point of view, I'd favour not doing the "comparing symbolic link? >>> We'll show the difference between the link contents, not target" >>> under no-index mode myself. >> >> If I read this correctly,... > > Now I re-read it and I can see it can be read either way. > > By "link contents" in "comparing symbolic link? We'll show the > difference between the link contents, not target", I meant the > result you get from readlink(2), which will result in > > diff --git a/RelNotes b/RelNotes > index c02235fe8c..b54330f7cd 120000 > --- a/RelNotes > +++ b/RelNotes > @@ -1 +1 @@ > -Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.2.txt > \ No newline at end of file > +Documentation/RelNotes/2.11.0.txt > \ No newline at end of file > > not the comparison between the files that are link targets, > i.e. hypothetical > > diff --git a/RelNotes b/RelNotes > index c4d4397023..7a1fce7720 100644 > --- a/Documentation/RelNotes/2.10.2.txt > +++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/2.11.0.txt > @@ -1,41 +1,402 @@ > -Git v2.10.2 Release Notes > -========================= > +Git 2.11 Release Notes > ... > > And I'd favour *NOT* doing that if we are using our diff as a
Again, this can be read both ways. By "that" on the above line I meant "the former". > replacement for GNU and other diffs in "no-index" mode. Which leads > to ... > >>> That is a lot closer to the diff other people implemented, not ours. >>> Hence the knee-jerk reaction I gave in >>> >>> http://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqinrt1zcx....@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com > > ... this conclusion, which is consistent with ... > >> >> Let me quote the knee-jerk reaction: >> >>> My knee-jerk reaction is: >>> >>> * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks >>> behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off. > > ... this one. > > But notice "I _think_" in the first sentence you quoted. That is a > basic assumption that leads to the conclusion, and that assumption > is not a fact. Maybe users do *not* want the "no-index" mode as a > replacement for GNU and other diffs, in which case comparing the > result of readlink(2) even in no-index mode might have merit. I > just didn't think it was the case. And "I just didn't think it was the case", when fully spelt out, is "I just didn't think that the assumption was incorrect."
