Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] range-diff: fix regression in passing along diff options

From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] range-diff: fix regression in passing along diff options
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:36:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87in1666t9.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cSJ=T_iwPOaxT9T0XK2UYZfvkE_Vx5D__ZLct+z1-p5cg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Nov 09 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:34 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 08 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> > Looking at diff.c:parse_diff_opt() and enable_patch_output(), rather
>> > than introducing this new conditional, I'm thinking that a more
>> > correct fix would be:
>> >
>> >     opts.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH;
>> >
>> > (note the '|=' operator). This would result in 'opts.output_format'
>> > containing (DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH | DIFF_FORMAT_NO_OUTPUT), just as it did
>> > prior to 73a834e9e2 when --no-patch was specified.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you mean this on top:
>>
>>     -               if (!opts.output_format)
>>     -                       opts.output_format = DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH;
>>     +               opts.output_format |= DIFF_FORMAT_PATCH;
>
> That is indeed what I mean.

*Nod*

>> Then the --stat test I've added here fails, because unlike "diff" the
>> "--stat" (and others) will implicitly "--patch" and you need
>> "--no-patch" as well (again, unlike with "diff").
>
> This new --stat test also fails with Dscho's original git-range-diff
> implementation, even before 73a834e9e2 regressed the --no-patch case.
> The commit message seems to sell this patch as a pure regression-fix,
> so it feels wrong for it to be conflating a regression fix
> (--no-patch) with preparation for potential future improvements to
> other options (--stat, etc.).
>
> I could see this as a two-patch series in which patch 1/2 fixes the
> regression (with, say, "|="), and patch 2/2 generalizes setting
> 'opts.output_format' for the future. Alternately, if left as a single
> patch, perhaps the commit message could be fleshed out to better
> explain that it is doing more than merely fixing a regression (since
> it wasn't at all obvious to me, even after digging into the code
> earlier to come up with "|=", or now when trying to understand your
> response).

Yeah that makes sense. I did not see (but see now) that the --stat
behavior was different now v.s. before your 73a834e9e2.

>> Right now --stat is pretty useless, but it could be made to make sense,
>> and at that point (and earlier) I think it would be confusing if
>> "range-diff" had different semantics with no options v.s. one option
>> like "--stat" v.s. "--stat -p" compared to "diff".
>
> Perhaps this sort of rationale, along with some explanatory examples
> could be added to the commit message to help the reader more fully
> understand the situation.

*Nod*