From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: How to verify that lines were only moved, not edited? Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9FBEC5.2000407@viscovery.net> References: <4E9EDFEC.3040009@viscovery.net> <7vvcrkdi59.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 20 08:25:21 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RGm48-0003tk-IG for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932243Ab1JTGZN (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:25:13 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:13797 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754954Ab1JTGZM (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:25:12 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RGm3y-0005K4-Cv; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:10 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272CB1660F; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:10 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15 In-Reply-To: <7vvcrkdi59.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 10/19/2011 19:07, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > When reviewing a "supposedly move-only" change, I typically just grab +/- > blocks from the patch, remove the +/- prefix and run comparison between > them. Thanks. As I explained to Jeff, I don't have a block-move, but the sort order of a block of lines was changed "in place". It seems I have to fall back to a similarly manual method as well (e.g., compare the whole-file-sorted versions of the pre- and the post-image). -- Hannes