From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per-path attribute based hunk header selection. Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:40:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <7vejjnhpap.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vwsxfe96i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vlkdve93o.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v8x9uexji.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v8x9tdlbv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Linus Torvalds , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 09 13:48:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I7rj2-0004B3-Bk for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:48:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752633AbXGILsR (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:48:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752348AbXGILsR (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:48:17 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:43265 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750957AbXGILsQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:48:16 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 09 Jul 2007 11:48:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp051) with SMTP; 09 Jul 2007 13:48:15 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1811o41qmU1OlH22zDhWMj0pntPmlmIc2ISPJYAN4 kMStkDBSpzltD6 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre writes: > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> About the comment from Johannes regarding hunk_header vs > >> funcname, I would actually prefer hunk_header, since that is > >> what this is about ("funcname" and "find_func" were misnomer > >> from the beginning), but I'd rename hunk_header to funcname for > >> the sake of consistency and minimizing the diff. > > > > I think "minimizing the diff" in this case is a bad reason. Using > > hunk_header is so much better than funcname IMHO. > > Well, even then it turns out to be a good reason, as the patch > to rename function and field can be a separate patch. After > adding that "latex pattern" stuff, I am even more inclined to > rename them. Not to mention that even the name "hunk_header_pattern_ident" would be a misnomer to begin with. It is the diff attribute we are storing there. Did you have any chance to look at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51828 yet? That should clarify things, and http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51829 on top of it should clarify things even more, besides making the code a little faster again. Ciao, Dscho