Johannes Sixt schrieb:
> René Scharfe schrieb:
>> I have to admit my main motivation was that one line gap, where a chunk
>> header hid an interesting line of context. Showing it didn't change the
>> length of the patch, so I found this to be a sad wastage.
>
> "Wastage" is relative. For a given patch, the one line of context that was
> hidden by the hunk header would be welcome by a human reader, but it is
> not necessarily useful if the patch is to be applied, in particular, if it
> is applied to a version of the file that has *more* than one line between
> the hunk contexts. This is the reason that diff does not produce 7 lines
> of context between changes in -U3 mode ("you asked for 3 lines of context,
> you get 3 lines of context").
Yes, that's an interesting example of the possible "merge conflicts" I
mentioned in my original mail, and one I didn't think of. And since I
don't do any merges myself, I don't know how much of a problem this is.
As Daniel writes, one could teach git-apply to ignore extra context. It
should even be possible to infer the -U option used to create a patch
and to remove any extra lines (which might get complicated for patches
that change both the start and the end of a file, though).
Also, I'd like to know how many patches of a given repo would be have
created such a problem, but I can't think of a way to count them at the
moment. I need some sleep first.
> BTW, nomenclature seems to have settled at the word "hunk", not "chunk".
While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff uses both and defines "chunk" as
"change hunk", the GNU patch(1) manpage uses "hunk" throughout. "Hunk"
it is, then. :)
René
--
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
