Junio C Hamano schrieb: > Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Consider this hunk: >> >> @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ >> context before >> -old 1 >> -old 2 >> +new 1 >> +new 2 >> context after >> >> [Nomenclature: to "stage change 2" means to stage lines "-old 1" and >> "+new 1", in any order; likewise for "unstage" and "change 2".] > > You lost me. > > Do you mean to say that you always interpret the above hunk as: > > @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ > context before > -old 1 > +new 1 > -old 2 > +new 2 > context after > > and call "replace 'old 1' with 'new 1'" as "change 1", "replace 'old > 2' with 'new 2'" as "change 2"? No, it is not that I *always* interpret it this way. There is a problem to fix only if I *want* to interpret it this way. Probably that's what I have to make clear? > If it is what you are doing, it does not make much sense to me. "new 1" > may correspond to "old 1" and "old 2" while "new 2" may be an independent > addition. E.g. > > @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ > context before > -#define add(x,y) \ > - (x) + (y) > +#define add(x,y) ((x)+(y)) > +#define sub(x,y) ((x)-(y)) > context after > > I might want to pick bugfix of add() definition without using the new > definition of sub(). In order to that, there is nothing to fix; you can do that today without this patch. > Please call > > "-old 1" - change #1 > "-old 2" - change #2 > "+new 1" - change #3 > "+new 2" - change #4 > > and try explaining what you are doing again, pretty please? No, this sounds like 4 independent changes, and that is not what this fix is about. I'll try to come up with a better wording. -- Hannes -- 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
