On 04/12, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > On 04/11, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > Try > > > > > > git range-diff from...to > > > > > > with those two branches from https://gitlab.com/pclouds/git.git. The > > > interesting part is this > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gitcli.txt b/Documentation/gitcli.txt > > > --- a/Documentation/gitcli.txt > > > @@ -120,10 +111,11 @@ > > > * linkgit:git-commit[1] to advance the current branch. > > > > > > - * linkgit:git-reset[1] and linkgit:git-checkout[1] (with > > > -+ * linkgit:git-reset[1] and linkgit:git-restore[1] (with > > > - pathname parameters) to undo changes. > > > +- pathname parameters) to undo changes. > > > ++ * linkgit:git-restore[1] to undo changes. > > > > > > * linkgit:git-merge[1] to merge between local branches. > > > + > > > > > > This particular hunk comes from giteveryday.txt, not gitcli.txt. And > > > the b/Documentation/gitcli.txt line is also missing. > > > > I think the output here is technically correct, even though it is very > > misleading. range-diff doesn't currently show the filenames of the > > diff that changed, which makes this a bit hard to read. > > True. In the spirit of the "funcname" feature of our `git diff` command, > we could add some (abbreviated) form of the corresponding `diff` lines > (maybe just the `a/` filename? Or maybe the `a/` file name, prefixed by > `-` or `+`, and if the `b/` filename is different, `old->new`? With > `/dev/null` substituted by `(new)` or `(deleted)`?). Yeah something like this is what I ended up doing. Except I was a bit more verbose, so the filename would be prefixed with "modified file", "new file", "deleted file" or "renamed file". Since this doesn't need to be machine readable in any way, I felt like that might be easiest to consume for humans.
