Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Re-reading note: OK, This last sentence ("If not we will eventually be
> too far and break") is actually a bug. We might break before we find
> something interesting while we should keep going. For example in such
> a case, we should display like this, but won't:
Glad to see that my question has helped ;-)
>> This is on the else side of if (!xch->ignore), so we are looking at
>> ignored hunk, which means there is only blank line change. Can chg2
>> be 0 while chg1 is not zero, i.e. xch being a blank line removal?
>
> Exactly. It can be a blank line removal. But I don't want to consider
> it in the calculation.
> Here's why:
> ...
> What should be the output of diff --ignore-blank-lines ?
>
> I chose this alternative:
> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
> +change
> 1
> 2
> 3
> @@ -7,3 +5,4 @@
> 4
> 5
> 6
> +change
>
> While one could have chosen:
> @@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
> +change
> 1
> 2
> 3
> -
> -
> -
> -
> 4
> 5
> 6
> +change
> ...
> Nothing is interesting here, we just leave the interesting zone (if
> not already left) because everything else failed.
Yes, that asymmetry is what I was wondering if we want to have. If
we show additional blanks as a significant event, I am not so sure
we can say "Nothing is interesting here".
I do not feel strongly either way, but it just felt somewhat
inconsistent.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html