* Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2018-09-13 11:20]:
Yes in the long term we want to be able to coalesce edited hunks, but I think it is confusing to call coalesce_overlapping_hunks() at the moment as it will not coalesce the edited hunks.
I would see it as a first step into that direction.
I think that if you split a hunk, edit the first subhunk, transforming a trailing context line to a deletion then try if you try to stage the second subhunk it will fail. With your patch the edit will succeed as the second subhunk is skipped when testing the edited patch. Then when you try to stage the second subhunk it will fail as it's leading context will contradict the trailing lines of the edited subhunk. With the old method the edit failed but didn't store up trouble for the future.
Agreed. I guess the question is if you assume a hunk to be applied or skipped as the default. You can still find enough cases where neither the current nor the patched version works. I stumbled upon the one case where I wanted to stage only one part of a split hunk and that one worked after my patch. I leave it up to you if the added benefit overweights the stored up trouble.
Cheers Jochen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
