From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Rogan Dawes <lists@dawes.za.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Show binary file size change in diff --stat
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:40:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200704041540.59977.andyparkins@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4613A974.60808@dawes.za.net>
On Wednesday 2007 April 04 14:34, Rogan Dawes wrote:
> Well, how about my comments in <45E67978.9030805@dawes.za.net>,
> suggesting that the edit difference (number of steps required to
> transform one to the other) would be a better indication?
Perhaps. There is certainly a difference between:
somefile.bin | 1000 -> 1000 bytes
and
somefile.bin | 500 bytes removed, 500 bytes added
> I think it is better because it is consistent with what we currently do
> for text files: show the number of lines added/deleted.
The thing is, "lines" is an understandable unit for a text file, so it's
useful to show. I'm not sure the same is true of "bytes" for a binary file.
Those bytes could represent anything; the true unit of a binary file is
dependent on its type.
> For binary files, it would be consistent to show the number of bytes
> added/deleted. I have not investigated the output format for the
> libxdiff binary patch format, but hopefully it would not be too
> difficult to calculate the deletions and additions.
I'm inclined to agree with Johannes, while it's certainly something
that /could/ be shown - is it more useful? There is no guarantee that a
small change in the underlying content is represented by a small change in
the binary diff.
As an example: compress a file, change a byte, compress it again, perform a
binary diff; what is that diff telling you about the change? (My answer is:
not much).
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-04 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-04 13:14 [PATCH] Show binary file size change in diff --stat Andy Parkins
2007-04-04 13:34 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-04-04 14:40 ` Geert Bosch
2007-04-04 16:00 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-04-04 14:40 ` Andy Parkins [this message]
2007-04-04 15:51 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-04-04 16:22 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-04-04 16:26 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-04-04 16:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-04-04 16:59 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-04-04 17:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-04-04 17:47 ` Junio C Hamano
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-02-28 13:03 Andy Parkins
2007-02-28 14:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-28 14:51 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-02-28 15:15 ` Andy Parkins
2007-02-28 15:37 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-28 18:42 ` Andy Parkins
2007-02-28 19:41 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-28 15:26 ` Andy Parkins
2007-02-28 18:58 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-02-28 19:42 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-28 21:27 ` Rogan Dawes
2007-03-01 1:09 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-03-01 6:58 ` Rogan Dawes
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=200704041540.59977.andyparkins@gmail.com \
--to=andyparkins@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@dawes.za.net \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).