"Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I would imagine that the answer would still be a very similar looking
>>
>> ‑‑‑ a/0/...
>> +++ b/0/...
>> @@ ‑5,12 +5,6 @@
>> olcDatabase: {1}hdb
>> olcDbDirectory: /var/lib/ldap
>> olcSuffix: dc=...
>> ‑olcAccess: {0} ...
>> ‑olcAccess: {1} ...
>> ‑olcAccess: {2} ...
>> ‑olcAccess: {3} ...
>> ‑olcAccess: {4} ...
>> ‑olcAccess: {5} ...
>> olcLimits: {0}dn.exact=....
>> olcRootDn: cn=Admin,dc=...
>> olcRootPW: {SSHA}yZ...
>> @@ ‑52,6 +46,12 @@
>> entryUUID: ...
>> creatorsName: cn=config
>> createTimestamp: ...
>> ‑entryCSN: ...
>> +olcAccess: {0} ...
>> +olcAccess: {1} ...
>> +olcAccess: {2} ...
>> +olcAccess: {3} ...
>> +olcAccess: {4} ...
>> +olcAccess: {5} ...
>> +entryCSN: ...
>> modifiersName: cn=config
>> ‑modifyTimestamp: ...
>> +modifyTimestamp: ...
>>
>> with identical "olcAccess: {$n}" lines removed from earlier part the
>> file and added to the end of the file.
>>
>> So I am not sure what you are asking. It would not be correct to show
>> something like
>
> According to my eyes (just using Emacs to make sure) those olcAccess lines
> "numbered" 0 to 3, and 5 should be "context lines" as they are not changed.
And the "slightly different" example I asked you about has {4} in
both blocks identical, you are arguing that these 6 lines all should
appear as context?
It certainly is possible but then the patch would look quite
different. As "olcAccess: {0}" line in the preimage (i.e. a/)
appears at line 8, but that same line appears in the postimage
(i.e. b/) at line 49, such a patch that match these two olcAccess
blocks as unchanged MUST delete many lines that come after
"olcAccess: {5}" in the preimage (i.e. starting at line 14 with
olcLimits, line ending at entryCSN: at line 55 must be removed,
because they used to appear immediately after "olcAccess: {5}" in
the preimage a/, but in the postimage b/, none of tme appear after
the "olcAccess: {5}" that you claim to be common and unchanged (in
the postimage, instead you have only four lines that has"entryCSN:",
"modiferName", etc. before the end of the file).
Of course, these lines in the line range 14-55 actually are the ones
that did not change, as we can see above, so if you insist that you
must keep the 6-line "olcAccess" block as common and unchanged,
because your desired patch is deleting them from the pre-image after
"olcAccess: {5}" line, your desired patch must be adding them back
to the postimage somewhere (namely, before "olcAccess: {0}" line).
Such a patch is also a valid one in that it expresses the difference
between a/ and b/ in terms of a sequence of "delete these lines from
here" and "insert these lines to here", but it would be far less
interesting than what we see above. Instead of "we deleted 6 lines
near the beginning of the file" plus "then added 6 lines near the
end--ah, these 6 lines by the way are identical", you would instead
say "we deleted the block of lines 14-55 that appear immediately
after olcAccess:{5}" plus "we inserted the identical block of lines
immediately before olcAccess{0}". And you'd complain in the
opposite way: "These lines are identical but appear in different
locations in the preimage and the postimage -- why aren't they shown
as context lines?"
