On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Patrick Palka <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I have this nagging feeling that it is just as likely that two >>> uneven hunks align at the top as they align at the bottom, so while >>> this might not hurt it may not be the right approach for a better >>> solution, in the sense that when somebody really wants to do a >>> better solution, this change and the original code may need to be >>> ripped out and redone from scratch. >> >> Hmm, maybe. I stuck with assuming hunks are top-aligned because it >> required less code to implement :) > > Yeah, I understand that. > > If we will need to rip out only this change but keep the original in > order to implement a future better solution, then we might be better > off not having this change (if we anticipate such a better solution > to come reasonably soon), because it would make it more work for the > final improved solution. But if we need to rip out the original as > well as this change while we do so, then having this patch would not > make it more work, either. > > So as I said, I do not think it would hurt to have this as an > incremental improvement (albeit going in a possibly wrong > direction). > > Of course, it is a separate question if this change makes the output > worse, by comparing unmatched early parts of two hunks and making > nonsense highlight by calling highlight_pair() more often. As long > as that is not an issue, I am not opposed to this change, which was > what I meant to say by "this might not hurt". > That makes sense. The extra useless highlighting indeed is currently a problem but it may yet be worked around. -- 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