From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <junio@kernel.org>
Cc: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] doc: discuss textconv versus external diff drivers
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:45:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110524194527.GD584@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1306196874-64687-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com>
We already talk about how to use each one and how they work,
but it is a reasonable question to wonder why one might use
one over the other.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
This can probably go with Jay's --textconv documentation topic.
Documentation/gitattributes.txt | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
index 15aebc6..412c55b 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitattributes.txt
@@ -593,6 +593,37 @@ and now produces better output), you can remove the cache
manually with `git update-ref -d refs/notes/textconv/jpg` (where
"jpg" is the name of the diff driver, as in the example above).
+Choosing textconv versus external diff
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+If you want to show differences between binary or specially-formatted
+blobs in your repository, you can choose to use either an external diff
+command, or to use textconv to convert them to a diff-able text format.
+Which method you choose depends on your exact situation.
+
+The advantage of using an external diff command is flexibility. You are
+not bound to find line-oriented changes, nor is it necessary for the
+output to resemble unified diff. You are free to locate and report
+changes in the most appropriate way for your data format.
+
+A textconv, by comparison, is much more limiting. You provide a
+transformation of the data into a line-oriented text format, and git
+uses its regular diff tools to generate the output. There are several
+advantages to choosing this method:
+
+1. Ease of use. It is often much simpler to write a binary to text
+ transformation than it is to perform your own diff. In many cases,
+ existing programs can be used as textconv filters (e.g., exif,
+ odt2txt).
+
+2. Git diff features. By performing only the transformation step
+ yourself, you can still utilize many of git's diff features,
+ including colorization, word-diff, and combined diffs for merges.
+
+3. Caching. Textconv caching can speed up repeated diffs, such as those
+ you might trigger by running `git log -p`.
+
+
Marking files as binary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
1.7.4.5.7.g2e01
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-24 0:27 [PATCH] diff-options.txt: document --[no]-textconv Jay Soffian
2011-05-24 1:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-05-24 19:43 ` Jeff King
2011-05-24 19:45 ` Jeff King [this message]
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=20110524194527.GD584@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
--cc=junio@kernel.org \
/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).