Hi Thomas & Eric,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 07/29, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 07/21, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > Just like tbdiff, we now show the diff between matching patches. This is
> > > > a "diff of two diffs", so it can be a bit daunting to read for the
> > > > beginner.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Note also: while tbdiff accepts the `--no-patches` option to suppress
> > > > these diffs between patches, we prefer the `-s` option that is
> > > > automatically supported via our use of diff_opt_parse().
> > >
> > > One slightly unfortunate thing here is that we don't show these
> > > options in 'git range-diff -h', which would be nice to have. I don't
> > > know if that's possible in git right now, if it's not easily possible,
> > > I definitely wouldn't want to delay this series for that, and we could
> > > just add it to the list of possible future enhancements that other
> > > people mentioned.
> >
> > This issue is not specific to git-range-diff; it's shared by other
> > commands which inherit diff options via diff_opt_parse(). For
> > instance, "git log -h" doesn't show diff-related options either, yet
> > it accepts them.
>
> Fair enough, that makes sense. Thanks for the pointer!
>
> There's one more thing that I noticed here:
>
> git range-diff --no-patches
> fatal: single arg format requires a symmetric range
>
> Which is a slightly confusing error message. In contrast git log does
> the following on an unrecognized argument:
>
> git log --no-patches
> fatal: unrecognized argument: --no-patches
>
> which is a little better I think. I do however also thing the "fatal:
> single arg format requires a symmetric range" is useful when someone
> genuinely tries to use the single argument version of the command. So
> I don't know what a good solution for this would be.
I immediately thought of testing for a leading `-` of the remaining
argument, but I could imagine that somebody enterprisey uses
git range-diff -- -my-first-attempt...-my-second-attempt
and I do not really want to complexify the code... Ideas?
> > > > diff --git a/range-diff.c b/range-diff.c
> > > > @@ -300,6 +325,9 @@ static void output(struct string_list *a, struct
> > > > string_list *b)
> > > > printf("%d: %s ! %d: %s\n",
> > > > b_util->matching + 1, short_oid(a_util),
> > > > j + 1, short_oid(b_util));
> > > > + if (!(diffopt->output_format &
> > > > DIFF_FORMAT_NO_OUTPUT))
> > >
> > > Looking at this line, it looks like it would be easy to support
> > > '--no-patches' as well, which may be slightly easier to understand that
> > > '-s' to someone new to the command. But again that can be added later
> > > if someone actually cares about it.
> >
> > What wasn't mentioned (but was implied) by the commit message is that
> > "-s" is short for "--no-patch", which also comes for free via
> > diff_opt_parse(). True, "--no-patch" isn't spelled exactly the same as
> > "--no-patches", but git-range-diff isn't exactly a perfect tbdiff
> > clone, so hopefully not a git problem. Moreover, "--no-patch" is
> > internally consistent within the Git builtin commands.
>
> Makes sense, thanks! "--no-patch" does make sense to me. There's
> still a lot of command line flags in git to learn for me, even after
> all this time using it ;) Might be nice to spell it out in the commit
> message for someone like me, especially as "--no-patches" is already
> mentioned. Though I guess most regulars here would know about
> "--no-patch", so maybe it's not worth it. Anyway that is definitely
> not worth another round here.
Sure, but not many users learn from reading the commit history...
:-)
Ciao,
Dscho
