On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:56 AM Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:31 AM Johannes Schindelin > > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > BTW I like to have an extra space in front of all the range-diff lines, to > > > make it easier to discern them from the rest. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps I'm misreading your comment. > > Sorry, I was really unclear. > > In the cover letters sent out by GitGitGadget (or earlier, my > mail-patch-series.sh command), I took pains to indent the entire > range-diff (or interdiff) with a single space. That is, the footer > "Range-diff vs v<n>:" is not indented at all, but all subsequent lines of > the range-diff have a leading space. > > The original reason was to stop confusing `git apply` when sending an > interdiff as part of a single patch without a cover letter (in which case > mail-patch-series.sh inserted the interdiff below the `---` marker, and > the interdiff would have looked like the start of the real diff > otherwise). The new version[1] likewise indents the interdiff to avoid confusing git-am / git-apply. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20180722095717.17912-1-sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > In the meantime, I got used to this indentation so much that I do not want > to miss it, it is a relatively easy and intuitive visual marker. > > This, however, will be harder to achieve now that you are using the > libified range-diff. I toyed with indenting the range-diff in both the cover letter and below the "---" line in a patch. With the libified range-diff, doing so involves modifying the range-diff implementation (rather than having the consumer of the range-diff manage the indentation locally), so it adds a bit of complexity to show_range_diff(), though perhaps not too much. However, I opted against it for a few reasons. First, "header" lines apart, all lines of the range-diff are already indented, and the existing indentation was sufficient (for me, at least) as a visual marker. Second, range-diffs tend to be _wide_, especially the header lines, and I was loath to make it wider by indenting more. Third, due to the existing indentation of the diff proper, a range-diff won't confuse git-am / git-apply, nor will the unindented header lines, so extra indentation seemed superfluous. > > > > @@ -1438,6 +1480,7 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > > > > + const char *range_diff = NULL; > > > > > > Maybe `range_diff_opt`? It's not exactly the range diff that is contained > > > in this variable. > > > > I could, though I was trying to keep it shorter rather than longer. > > This is still the same in the re-roll, but I can rename it if you > > insist. > > I think it will confuse me in the future if I read `range_diff` and even > the data type suggests that it could hold the output of a `git range-diff > <options>` run. > > So I would like to insist. In the new version[1], this variable is named 'rdiff_prev' (the "previous" version against which the range-diff is to be generated). > > > > +format_patch () { > > > > + title=$1 && > > > > + range=$2 && > > > > + test_expect_success "format-patch --range-diff ($title)" ' > > > > + git format-patch --stdout --cover-letter --range-diff=$range \ > > > > + master..unmodified >actual && > > > > + grep "= 1: .* s/5/A" actual && > > > > + grep "= 2: .* s/4/A" actual && > > > > + grep "= 3: .* s/11/B" actual && > > > > + grep "= 4: .* s/12/B" actual > > > > > > I guess this might make sense if `format_patch` was not a function, but it > > > is specifically marked as a function... so... shouldn't these `grep`s also > > > be using function parameters? > > > > A later patch adds a second test which specifies the same ranges but > > in a different way, so the result will be the same, hence the > > hard-coded grep'ing. The function avoids repetition across the two > > tests. I suppose I could do this a bit differently, though, to avoid > > pretending it's a general-purpose function. > > If you can think of a way that would make this easier to read for, say, > myself if I ever find myself debugging a regression caught by this test, I > would appreciate that. In the new version, the function is gone; it looks like this: --- >8 --- for prev in topic master..topic do test_expect_success "format-patch --range-diff=$prev" ' git format-patch --stdout --cover-letter --range-diff=$prev \ master..unmodified >actual && grep "= 1: .* s/5/A" actual && grep "= 2: .* s/4/A" actual && grep "= 3: .* s/11/B" actual && grep "= 4: .* s/12/B" actual ' done --- >8 ---
