Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jan 19 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Even if the helper is finalizing the current hunk then I think that >>> "nonsense" hunk would still wrong as it would be calling >>> finalize_hunk() on _every_ context line in the hunk rather than just >>> being called once to finalize the hunk. >> >> True; this triggers every time we finish reading the common context >> lines and not at the end of hunk. In any case, I think what we >> queued looks good for 'next'. > > For what it's worth (and as the person who started this side-thread) I > agree. This looks good as-is, thanks both! > >>>> - if ((marker == '-' || marker == '+') && *p == ' ') >>>> - hunk->splittable_into++; >>>> + if (*p == ' ') >>>> + complete_file(marker, &hunk->splittable_into); Yup, thanks all. The fix is now in 'next' and I expect we can safely merge it down as part of the first batch next cycle.
