Hi Philippe, On Wed, 24 Aug 2022, Philippe Blain wrote: > Le 2022-08-24 à 17:21, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget a écrit : > > Philippe Blain reported in > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/ecf6f5be-22ca-299f-a8f1-bda38e5ca246@xxxxxxxxx > > that there is a problem when running the built-in version of git add -p with > > diff-so-fancy [https://github.com/so-fancy/diff-so-fancy] as diff colorizer. > > The symptom is this: > > > > error: could not parse colored hunk header '?[36m?[1m?[38;5;13m@ file:1 @?[1m?[0m' > > > > > > This patch series addresses that and should fix > > https://github.com/so-fancy/diff-so-fancy/issues/437 > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > * Added a commit to ignore dirty submodules just like the Perl version > > does. > > > > Johannes Schindelin (4): > > t3701: redefine what is "bogus" output of a diff filter > > add -p: gracefully ignore unparseable hunk headers in colored diffs > > add -p: handle `diff-so-fancy`'s hunk headers better > > add -p: ignore dirty submodules > > > > add-patch.c | 24 ++++++++++++++---------- > > t/t3701-add-interactive.sh | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > base-commit: 795ea8776befc95ea2becd8020c7a284677b4161 > > Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1336%2Fdscho%2Fdiff-so-fancy-v2 > > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1336/dscho/diff-so-fancy-v2 > > Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1336 > > > > Range-diff vs v1: > > > > 1: 74ab50eeb1c = 1: 74ab50eeb1c t3701: redefine what is "bogus" output of a diff filter > > 2: b07f85a0359 = 2: b07f85a0359 add -p: gracefully ignore unparseable hunk headers in colored diffs > > 3: 9dac9f74d2e = 3: 9dac9f74d2e add -p: handle `diff-so-fancy`'s hunk headers better > > -: ----------- > 4: 540ce27c38a add -p: ignore dirty submodules > > > > Thanks, 4/4 fixes the mismatched output bug. Just after I sent my last email, > I asked myself "but why does 'git add -p' presents dirty submodule to the user, > as they can't be staged?" :) > > A small question about 2/4, any reason why you did not use a "Reported-by:" > trailer ? Not that I care that much, but I think using such a trailer is more > standard, and makes for easier statistics as it's more parseable :) Good suggestion. How about adding your review? I'll then add a "Reviewed-by:" trailer, too ;-) Ciao, Dscho
