On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 19:51, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The "two" diffs may indeed be misleading. > > The patch only changes one source and the "supporting material" is > not something that we need to use on the source file---it is only > showing the change in the output. > > I did appreciate the inclusion of doc-diff myself, but it seems that > it confused Chris and Patrick. I doubt that it is an improvement to > omit doc-diff. We may want to find a way to make it easier for the > readers to tell which part is the patch to be applied and which part > is not in similar changes we discuss on the list in the future, and > apparently, a one column indentation alone was not quite sufficient > in this case. Replacing "doc-diff:" label and patch header lines up > to the hunk header with a prose to explain what the intended diff is > may have helped, e.g. Glad to know you found the included doc-diff useful. Thanks for the suggestion on how to present it. Next time I'll try wrapping the doc-diff in English prose to make it stand out more. The "doc-diff:" I used now was definitely a bit too subtle. Thanks Martin
