From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] range-diff: make output format more useful for "rebase --onto"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:29:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YUVdMVCuOTfg5zc3@nand.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv92yg5y6.fsf@gitster.g>
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 04:04:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> In a range-diff output, we often see an early part of an updated
> series having no changes since the previous iteration. After
> applying an updated patch submission to the same base as the
> previous round,
>
> $ git range-diff master..topic@{1} master..topic
>
> to view the differences since the previous edition, we might see
> something like this:
>
> [...]
Hmm... looks familiar :).
> The updated output format looks like this instead:
>
> 1 = 1 a05f02b1d9 a05f02b1d9 : t/helper/test-bitmap.c: add ...
> 2 = 2 8de300e1f7 8de300e1f7 : pack-bitmap.c: propagate nam ...
> 3 = 3 caca3c9f07 caca3c9f07 : midx.c: respect 'pack.writeB ...
> 4 = 4 2082224f17 2082224f17 : p5326: create missing 'perf- ...
> 5 = 5 97b89c8150 97b89c8150 : p5326: don't set core.multiP ...
> 6 < - a1dd4c97b9 ---------- : p5326: generate pack bitmaps ...
> - > 6 ---------- bf4a60874a : p5326: generate pack bitmaps ...
> 7 ! 7 2b909ebad3 54156af0d6 : t5326: test propagating hash ...
> @@ t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh: test_expect_success 'pack.preferBitmapTips' '
> + (
> + cd repo &&
I do not feel strongly about either format, and can understand an appeal
for both. I think that I find the existing format a little clearer to
read, but it's possible that I'm just biased since it's always been
that way.
But I can equally understand why it would be nicer to have both hashes
next to each other separated by whitespace.
I also don't care to make it configurable, or to work on more flexible
formatting options for range-diff. I would be fine with the proposed
format. As an alternative, something like this could work:
perl -ale 'if (@F[2] ne "=") { print "$l $r"; exit }; $l = @F[1]; $r = @F[4]'
when piped the output of range-diff with --no-patch. That gives you
empty output when the two series aren't related, which may or may not be
what you want.
Thanks,
Taylor
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-18 3:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-17 23:04 [PATCH/RFC] range-diff: make output format more useful for "rebase --onto" Junio C Hamano
2021-09-18 0:06 ` Eric Sunshine
2021-09-18 3:29 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2021-09-18 7:29 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-19 7:34 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-19 21:22 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YUVdMVCuOTfg5zc3@nand.local \
--to=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.