Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] diff: add long-running diff process via diff.<driver>.process

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Michael Montalbo via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> Zero hunks with status=success means the tool considers the
> files equivalent.  Git skips diff output for that file.

Is "zero hunk" a common word or some random string you invented?  If
the latter, which is I am assuming it to be, you should define what
it means at/before the first use.  Here in the proposed log message,
and ...

>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Montalbo <mmontalbo@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/config/diff.adoc   |   8 +
>  Documentation/gitattributes.adoc |  40 ++++
>  Makefile                         |   1 +
>  diff-process.c                   | 206 +++++++++++++++++++
>  diff-process.h                   |  28 +++
>  diff.c                           |  23 +++
>  t/.gitattributes                 |   1 +
>  t/t4080-diff-process.sh          | 338 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  8 files changed, 645 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 diff-process.c
>  create mode 100644 diff-process.h
>  create mode 100755 t/t4080-diff-process.sh
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/diff.adoc b/Documentation/config/diff.adoc
> index 1135a62a0a..4ab5f60df6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/diff.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/config/diff.adoc
> @@ -218,6 +218,14 @@ endif::git-diff[]
>  	Set this option to `true` to make the diff driver cache the text
>  	conversion outputs.  See linkgit:gitattributes[5] for details.
>  
> +`diff.<driver>.process`::
> +	The command to run as a long-running diff process.
> +	The tool communicates via the pkt-line protocol and returns
> +	hunks that are fed into Git's diff and blame pipelines.
> +	If the tool returns zero hunks, the file is treated as
> +	unchanged for both diff output and blame attribution.
> +	See linkgit:gitattributes[5] for details.

... also here.

I do not know if you mean "the tool returns no hunks" (there is no
"hunk <old_start> <old_count> <new_start> <new_count>" line passed
from the tool over the protocol) or "the tool returns zero-hunk"
(there is a special "zero-hunk" message to signal this particular
condition sent over the protocol), and this description does not
quite help disambiguating between the two.

If the former, then avoid "zero hunks" as it sounds like a noun with
special meaning.  Yes, we can say "tool returns one hunk", "tool
returns 31 hunks", etc., so "tool returns zero hunks" may logically
be correct, but "when the tool returns no hunks with status=success"
is much less confusing, I think.