Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] log,diff-tree: add --combined-with-paths options for merges with renames




Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Also, my first version of the patch actually showed all names, on all
> lines, but I found the heavy repetition really annoying, and not in
> keeping with how non-merge commits are handled (where original
> filenames are only shown when they differ).  Granted, my change isn't
> the only one.  We could just have all names shown if they are not all
> identical, as you suggest and I also considered, but I liked this way
> slightly better.  If others feel strongly, I can change it, that was
> just my gut feel and preference.

I do not have a strong _preference_; I am only worried about ease of
use by consumers of the raw output, i.e. scripts.  From that point
of view, --all-names showing all names always even when there is no
rename is involved would certainly be the easiest to write a parser
for, and lines being overly repetitive is a non-issue.  For human
consumption, it would be a separate matter, but they won't be
reading from the --raw output that lists blob object names
repetitively (the object names may or may not be different, but they
are all equally gibberish) before showing the human-readble part,
which are names.

> You could kind of ask the same question of -c -p, actually.  I looked
> into that, but I was only interested in raw format output and --cc is
> only about coalescing uninteresting hunks in patches.  Whenever git
> shows a combined diff in patch format, it always lists two files in
> the header, e.g.:
>   a/foo.c
>   b/foo.c

Yeah, but with a new option, it does not have to stay that way.  It
is OK to show a/foo.c, b/bar.c, c/baz.c, or perhaps an easy way to
avoid overlong unreadable lines in these human readable output may
be to only show b/foo.c to report the result and list the original
names using the "rename from" "rename to" extended diff-headers
shown in normal diff output with rename detection enabled.

> ...  I guess the "combined" patch is already kind of
> special, so it could make sense, ...

Absolutely.  -c/--cc output with -p departs from the usual "diff is
to compare two things" by having two +/- indicator columns and more
than two '@'s in hunk header to begin with.  It is only natural if
we are showing more/all names in --raw, we should avoid losing info
in the same way.