Hi Eric, On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote: > 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/ Great! > > 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. Totally understandable. For some reason, I never thought about that fact (a range-diff is *not* a diff) when changing mail-patch-series.ts to use range-diffs instead of interdiffs. > > > > > @@ -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). Thank you. > > > > > +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 --- Looks good. Thank you so much! Dscho
