Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] diff: check MIN_BLOCK_LENGTH at start of new block

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When noticing that the current line is not the continuation of the
> current block, but the start of a new one, mark_color_as_moved() does
> not check the length of the current block. Perform that check.

As far as I remember that behavior is intentional, as indicated by
the succeeding test.

The whole MIN_BLOCK_LENGTH thing is a hack IMHO as we did not have
a better heuristic for suppressing uninteresting "moved" lines such as closing
braces in C.

The information that a thing is moved in between two blocks is more
valuable than pointing out it is just 'new' or 'old'.

As this is changing behavior in a way that seems controversial, can you
give your motivation/example for why this behavior is better?
(Do we want to put it into an option/mode?)



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux