Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > In the check_ntpd.c program, there is no bug. I found the git diff
> > > output surprising, so I reported it.
> >
> > This is what I get from "GNU diff -pu" which makes me surpried
> > that anybody finds "git diff" hunk header surprising. Notice
> > that hunk at line 84.
> >
> > --- read-cache.c 2007-11-12 12:08:00.000000000 -0800
> > +++ read-cache.c+ 2007-11-12 12:07:54.000000000 -0800
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static int ce_compare_data(struct cache_
> > return match;
> > }
> > -static int ce_compare_link(struct cache_entry *ce, size_t expected_size)
> > +static int ce_compare_lonk(struct cache_entry *ce, size_t expected_size)
> > {
> > int match = -1;
> > char *target;
> > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int ce_compare_link(struct cache_
> > match = memcmp(buffer, target, size);
> > free(buffer);
> > free(target);
> > - return match;
> > + return match + 0;
> > }
> > static int ce_compare_gitlink(struct cache_entry *ce)
>
>
> I notice it, and I don't like it. I guess I'm just used to git being
> smarter than their GNU tool equivalents, especially since it only ever
> applies patches in full.
I still think the existing behaviour is reasonable. When I read a diff
(and remember, the hunk headers are _only_ there for the reviewer's
pleasure), the function names are a hint for _me_ where to look, and which
is the context, in my existing, _original_ file.
That is, unless I have already applied the patch, and am looking for the
reverse patch. And, lo and behold, the reverse patch generated by
git-diff really shows the now-current function name!
So IMO "fixing" this behaviour would be a regression.
Ciao,
Dscho
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
