Hello Laurent,
I have not worked in this part of Git before, please pardon my
ignorance. I went through the conversations held in this thread
Here are my inferences:
> The `diff.relative` boolean option set to `true` show only changes on
> the current directory and show relative pathnames to the current
> directory.
> Teach --no-relative to override earlier --relative
I think the message can be written better, maybe something like:
The `diff.relative` boolean option set to `true` shows only changes
in the current directory/value specified by the `path` argument of
the `relative` option and shows pathnames relative to the
aforementioned directory.
Teach `--no-relative` to override the earlier `--relative`
> --- a/Documentation/config/diff.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/config/diff.txt
> @@ -105,6 +105,10 @@ diff.mnemonicPrefix::
> diff.noprefix::
> If set, 'git diff' does not show any source or destination prefix.
>
> +diff.relative::
> + If set to 'true', 'git diff' does not show changes outside of the directory
> + and show pathnames relative to the current directory.
In the second last line, it would be better to write is as:
... does not show changes outside of the current directory/the path
provided as the argument in `relative`?
Even my version of the above line seems very crude and innaccurate, but
I think that we should take into account the `path` passed down to us
by the `--relative[=<path>]` option.
Moving on, what I wondered was that maybe making it a `true/false`
option would be better? Something like:
git diff --relative=false //override the diff.relative setting
git diff --relative=true <path> //works like the usual `relative`
And by the usual, I mean :
git diff --relative[=<path>]
What do you think? I think it would be better than adding a new option.
Also, if I am not mistaken:
> @@ -5195,8 +5202,7 @@ static int diff_opt_relative(const struct option *opt,
> {
> struct diff_options *options = opt->value;
>
> - BUG_ON_OPT_NEG(unset);
> - options->flags.relative_name = 1;
> + options->flags.relative_name = !unset;
This is the overriding part right?
BTW you mention the `no-relative` setting which will override the
`relative` option. I am not able to see where exactly is the occurence
of the `no-relative` option in the code? What I mean is that I am not
able to observe where exactly does the C code identify a `no-relative`
option from the command line input? Did I miss something out here?
All nits aside, it looks like a very good concept to me. Nice work! :)
Regards,
Shourya Shukla
