On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 04:04:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> In a range-diff output, we often see an early part of an updated
> series having no changes since the previous iteration. After
> applying an updated patch submission to the same base as the
> previous round,
>
> $ git range-diff master..topic@{1} master..topic
>
> to view the differences since the previous edition, we might see
> something like this:
>
> [...]
Hmm... looks familiar :).
> The updated output format looks like this instead:
>
> 1 = 1 a05f02b1d9 a05f02b1d9 : t/helper/test-bitmap.c: add ...
> 2 = 2 8de300e1f7 8de300e1f7 : pack-bitmap.c: propagate nam ...
> 3 = 3 caca3c9f07 caca3c9f07 : midx.c: respect 'pack.writeB ...
> 4 = 4 2082224f17 2082224f17 : p5326: create missing 'perf- ...
> 5 = 5 97b89c8150 97b89c8150 : p5326: don't set core.multiP ...
> 6 < - a1dd4c97b9 ---------- : p5326: generate pack bitmaps ...
> - > 6 ---------- bf4a60874a : p5326: generate pack bitmaps ...
> 7 ! 7 2b909ebad3 54156af0d6 : t5326: test propagating hash ...
> @@ t/t5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh: test_expect_success 'pack.preferBitmapTips' '
> + (
> + cd repo &&
I do not feel strongly about either format, and can understand an appeal
for both. I think that I find the existing format a little clearer to
read, but it's possible that I'm just biased since it's always been
that way.
But I can equally understand why it would be nicer to have both hashes
next to each other separated by whitespace.
I also don't care to make it configurable, or to work on more flexible
formatting options for range-diff. I would be fine with the proposed
format. As an alternative, something like this could work:
perl -ale 'if (@F[2] ne "=") { print "$l $r"; exit }; $l = @F[1]; $r = @F[4]'
when piped the output of range-diff with --no-patch. That gives you
empty output when the two series aren't related, which may or may not be
what you want.
Thanks,
Taylor
