On Fri, Nov 09 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:34 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 08 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> > Looking at diff.c:parse_diff_opt() and enable_patch_output(), rather >> > than introducing this new conditional, I'm thinking that a more >> > correct fix would be: >> > >> > opts.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH; >> > >> > (note the '|=' operator). This would result in 'opts.output_format' >> > containing (DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH | DIFF_FORMAT_NO_OUTPUT), just as it did >> > prior to 73a834e9e2 when --no-patch was specified. >> >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you mean this on top: >> >> - if (!opts.output_format) >> - opts.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH; >> + opts.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH; > > That is indeed what I mean. *Nod* >> Then the --stat test I've added here fails, because unlike "diff" the >> "--stat" (and others) will implicitly "--patch" and you need >> "--no-patch" as well (again, unlike with "diff"). > > This new --stat test also fails with Dscho's original git-range-diff > implementation, even before 73a834e9e2 regressed the --no-patch case. > The commit message seems to sell this patch as a pure regression-fix, > so it feels wrong for it to be conflating a regression fix > (--no-patch) with preparation for potential future improvements to > other options (--stat, etc.). > > I could see this as a two-patch series in which patch 1/2 fixes the > regression (with, say, "|="), and patch 2/2 generalizes setting > 'opts.output_format' for the future. Alternately, if left as a single > patch, perhaps the commit message could be fleshed out to better > explain that it is doing more than merely fixing a regression (since > it wasn't at all obvious to me, even after digging into the code > earlier to come up with "|=", or now when trying to understand your > response). Yeah that makes sense. I did not see (but see now) that the --stat behavior was different now v.s. before your 73a834e9e2. >> Right now --stat is pretty useless, but it could be made to make sense, >> and at that point (and earlier) I think it would be confusing if >> "range-diff" had different semantics with no options v.s. one option >> like "--stat" v.s. "--stat -p" compared to "diff". > > Perhaps this sort of rationale, along with some explanatory examples > could be added to the commit message to help the reader more fully > understand the situation. *Nod*
