On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:49 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 3:04 PM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget > > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Side note: I work on implementing range-diff not only to make life easier for reviewers who have to suffer through v2, v3, ... of my patch series, but also to verify my changes before submitting a new iteration. And also, maybe even more importantly, I plan to use it to verify my merging-rebases of Git for > >> Windows (for which I previously used to redirect the pre-rebase/post-rebase diffs vs upstream and then compare them using `git diff --no-index`). And of course any interested person can see what changes were necessary e.g. in the merging-rebase of Git for Windows onto v2.17.0 by running a command like: > > > > Thanks for making tools that makes the life of a Git developer easier! > > (Just filed https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/issues/26 > > which asks to break lines for this cover letter) > > Thanks. These cover letters are unreadable without W Q > (gnus-article-fill-long-lines) While I had some comments on how I dislike some aspects of the implementation, I think it proves its usefulness by my usage, so I would suggest to merge it down to next as-is (and as soon as possible); deferring the issues in the implementation to later. I found running the range-diff on origin/pu to be a pleasant experience, although that still highlights the issues of in-exact coloring (the colors are chosen by the first two characters of the diff, which leads to mis-coloring of diff headers of the inner diff in the outer diff. But despite the imperfection, I strongly urge to consider the series as-is as good enough for inclusion. Thanks, Stefan Thanks, Stefan
