Stefan Beller <sbel...@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.
