On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:07:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > And figuring out "B" here > > would be prohibitively difficult, I would think, as it would require > > applying the funcname rules internal to git-diff to a hunk that git-diff > > itself never actually sees. > > You can actually apply a split hunk being proposed to a temporary > file and then ask "git diff" about it, so I do not think difficult > is too much of an issue, True, I didn't think of that. > but I doubt we would want to see header_B, > exactly because when the user says "Split this hunk", s/he is very > well aware that the second one is artificial and was split from the > original hunk whose header said header_A. Right, that's along the lines of the "you could make the argument" I was thinking of. Since you are thinking it, too, I'm definitely in favor of stopping at Ævar's patch and seeing if anybody even notices or complains. Thanks. -Peff -- 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