On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:22:16AM +0200, Thomas Rast wrote: > >> [I don't seem to have received a copy of the original mail, so I can >> only guess...] > > Yes, the original doesn't seem to have made it to the list. Sorry, I > don't have a copy (I am in the habit of deleting direct mails that are > cc'd to the list, as I keep a separate list archive). > > Mark, did you happen to send an HTML mail? The list will silently > reject such mail.
Yes, that was probably it. I tried to find a gmail configuration, but I now discover it is done per-email, not globally. Apologies. I have forwarded the original to Thomas, but based on current feedback, it seems not worth re-sending the original mail to the list. See below. >> > Note that the number of lines in your --word-diff=color hunk and the >> > actual diff will not necessarily be the same. What happens if I split a >> > hunk with your patch? >> >> If it's actually what you hint at, there's another problem: the word >> diff might not even have the same number of hunks. For example, a >> long-standing bug (or feature, depending on POV) of word-diff is that it >> does not take opportunities to completely drop hunks that did not make >> any word-level changes. > > Yeah, I didn't even think of that. > > In general, I think one can assume 1-to-1 correspondence between whole > regular diffs and whole word-diffs, but not below that (i.e., neither a > correspondence between hunks nor between lines). > > With something like contrib/diff-highlight, you get some decoration, and > can assume a 1-to-1 line correspondence. My choice of "permit" in the description was not best. My implementation showed a word-based diff, but preserved the existing mechanism for actually applying the hunk. I understand the way colorization in git-add--interactive.perl works right now is to colorize one version to display and use another - I think I preserved that. I intended to permit the user to choose to show a word-based diff of a patch during interactive add. > However, I think that when reviewing text (especially re-wrapped > paragraphs) that word-diff can be much easier to read, _because_ it > throws away the line correspondence. To be correct, though, I think we > would have to simply show the whole word-diff for a file and say "is > this OK?". Which sort of defeats the purpose of "add -p" as a hunk > selector (you could just as easily run "git diff --color-words foo" and Hmm, I will have to re-consider the implications on that kind of workflow. Thanks! > "git add foo"). But it does save keystrokes if your workflow is to > simply "add -p" everything to double-check it before adding. Yes, that was what I was aiming to make easier. > So I dunno. I could see myself using it, but I certainly wouldn't want a > config variable that turns it on all the time (which is what the > original patch did). Good point. What I think I really want is "git add --interactive=color" (with or without --patch) to permit the user to choose to see the (colorized) word-based diff when they want one. I now see that the config file approach in my proposed patch doesn't go close enough to that to be worth considering further. I think a proper implementation of the above command would have to * add something to builtin_add_options in builtin/add.c, * set a new static variable in add.c, and * extend the calling logic for interactive_add() and/or run_add_interactive() accordingly, so that the perl script can get the user's choice on the command line and not from a config file. And only respond when colorization is configured. Does --patch=color, --interactive=color or adding new option --color-words make more sense? I'll have a think about that and get back to you guys. Thanks! Mark > -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
