From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
To: David Ho <davidkwho@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: git-diff-tree rename detection for single file
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:45:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7virvujkcw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vu0fepn0x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:50:54 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> David Ho <davidkwho@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I have a small suggestion to make the diff of a renamed file a bit
>> more meaningful. I have a file that is renamed-edited and commited.
>> git-diff-tree -M -p <commit> shows one result and git-diff-tree -M -p
>> <commit> <filename> shows another. If they both show a rename
>> occurred then I think the single file git-diff-tree will be more
>> useful.
>
> Sorry, this was vetoed by Linus long time ago. The <filename>
> restricts the paths being passed to the diff machinery upfront,
> so once you say <filename>, the rename detection will see only
> that path and nothing else to compare and guess which other file
> that file in question is a copy of.
Having said that, I think we *could* introduce a new flag to
git-diff-* brothers, --late-pathspec, that makes them apply the
paths restriction on the output side instead. For obvious
reasons, using this flag would not make any sense unless you are
using one of -M, -C, or --pickaxe-all.
A related thing I have long longed for is a rename following
"git-diff-tree --stdin".
git-rev-list HEAD | git-diff-tree --stdin -M git-commit.sh
This command line, as everybody hopefully knows, is how "git
whatchanged" is implemented internally. If git-diff-tree were
taught to follow the rename history, when it hits the boundary
that git-commit-script was renamed to git-commit.sh, it could
start acting as if the pathspec given were git-commit-script
from that point. To see that rename it needs --late-pathspec;
the current pathspec filters the input so the above command line
would not even care what git-commit-script looked like when the
rename happend. It would just tell git-commit.sh appeared from
nowhere.
If implemented naively, this rename-following would have funny
interactions when it hits a merge commit, so it may probably be
harder than it sounds, but this would be a good way to do
annotate as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-19 2:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-18 19:56 git-diff-tree rename detection for single file David Ho
2005-10-18 20:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-10-19 2:45 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2005-10-19 3:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-10-19 5:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-10-19 16:04 ` Nicolas Pitre
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=7virvujkcw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net \
--to=junkio@cox.net \
--cc=davidkwho@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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