From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] Add diff-diff, which compares the diffs of two commits Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:34:49 -0800 Message-ID: <7vzlwblpk6.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1197737505128-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Steffen Prohaska X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Dec 15 20:35:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J3cnS-0000pz-Gd for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:35:38 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753037AbXLOTfE (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:35:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753517AbXLOTfE (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:35:04 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:55363 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753037AbXLOTfC (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:35:02 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5613D25; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:34:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05633D24; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:34:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1197737505128-git-send-email-prohaska@zib.de> (Steffen Prohaska's message of "Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:51:42 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Steffen Prohaska writes: > At this point, I'm only seeking comments about the general direction. > The patches should not be applied to git.git. > > - Do you think something like this would be helpful? > - Are similar approaches already available? > - How do you use git to support code review; besides discussing > patches on mailing lists? I think there are other good building blocks you can use outside git to help reviewing evolution of patches (interdiff comes to mind). When I receive a replacement series to a topic, I use RP script (available in my 'todo' branch and checked out in Meta/ directory in my work area, together with other scripts from 'todo'), which: * finds where the older series were applied; * detaches HEAD at that commit, and apply the new series; * runs diff between the old and new; * updates the tip of that topic with the new series. After it finishes, "diff topic@{1} topic" becomes the incremental diff between the old and the new series, and if I do not like the end result, I can reset --hard back to topic@{1}.