From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AB020248 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 19:21:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726798AbfCOTVU (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:21:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f65.google.com ([209.85.208.65]:38749 "EHLO mail-ed1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726527AbfCOTVU (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:21:20 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f65.google.com with SMTP id e10so4624712edy.5 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:21:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LNlpK6fqNt3IMrHX+nQLEJKEabVGoS+D/iDXKshxKJc=; b=CdYhpM0GH7KNUGyh5pie8VEk9CtXN+eT1zrWlkVgGl2GfryfpQvNFXns4N/uAgtFWq Qtvsts3rD4m93dRZBX8XkL2VOkV5rXTlst0nc8ASYI28as4/Y2bjZ4RrDd+MRqCAf9RB IBY0DUuV/BpzZcQRK5Nsl7PKlucGHY1VaY1A8ukbxyiAqXb/5Y63hLhmK2jt7+GmWtwf S9xzY4EC4n313VXKecImuRuIu+FN/HB6hyIE9VMUCL6NfOvVIwXKxhilPeJO63S6/9fF d0YrneDAlEzhRZdoqoEpWM0qP6Oeb/0H94tiMiSSaJdTJ8nSzEYCO7ct8oTZYgxibJCZ t2Mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LNlpK6fqNt3IMrHX+nQLEJKEabVGoS+D/iDXKshxKJc=; b=NH3PDv/40L4qVOXDhTI8mB30E3PHHPFM8hiUg3zOOd8gRRiacqY+Kjr264Va65GbjZ GpwIc7TxAKJ8PkStkH/wo9fnFtpVnwZ/2/hsiw+CoFQqq3wlXFyI8k+Vff0Ix+8oSecM g99qcVLhJfq3Lsb8oqCca4bmOPQ8pHQYYBxibdLl2uz8fGQQeSDTLiJ5cFRQphZkMSjF Qk9S2IMWOV67pRm3kdhrLgKYXPXP9KrY5M/uRm1pkXstqABDqUf3hzCEa4dbaOmaxefZ 2u8Ic5BaLi+SQrsEoscd2eSt6gmRkSl6pzQmrfUafc2Ca0VsQR81QXxBWN+eot1QtEn0 2gcw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXBpNCJwYSq1rXiy5rYvDnLQv8587LiNika10/h+rqb93+Www/C v9vFx8Kjnz5qok4rxqWWtlI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyaif0zYwpF1115TZPpnvhVJX/ZKPv93zLS3wlnBlPF9KrerRHNfvBk0lADahk7wvNYiCfxvg== X-Received: by 2002:a50:a8a4:: with SMTP id k33mr3849344edc.261.1552677678627; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (dhcp-077-251-215-224.chello.nl. [77.251.215.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u47sm887354edm.37.2019.03.15.12.21.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:21:17 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git Mailing list , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [WIP PATCH/RFC] Use a higher range-diff --creation-factor for format-patch References: <87y35g9l18.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid; Emacs 26.1; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 20:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87tvg49c5u.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 15 2019, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason > wrote: >> diff --git a/Documentation/git-format-patch.txt b/Documentation/git-form= at-patch.txt >> @@ -261,6 +261,10 @@ material (this may change in the future). >> +Defaults to 90, whereas the linkgit:git-range-diff[1] default is >> +60. It's assumed that you're submitting a new patch series & that we >> +should try harder than normal to find similarities. > > My understanding was that the primary use-case of git-range-diff > itself (which existed before the --range-diff option was added to > git-format-patch) was to generate a "range diff" for a cover letter of > a re-rolled series. So, I'm confused about why this tweaks the default > value of one command but not the other. > >> diff --git a/range-diff.h b/range-diff.h >> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ >> #define RANGE_DIFF_CREATION_FACTOR_DEFAULT 60 >> +#define RANGE_DIFF_CREATION_FACTOR_FORMAT_PATCH_DEFAULT 90 > > The point of introducing RANGE_DIFF_CREATION_FACTOR_DEFAULT in the > first place was to ensure that the default creation-factor didn't get > out-of-sync between git-range-diff and git-format-patch., Thus, > introducing this sort of inconsistency between the two would likely > lead to confusion on the part of users. After all, --range-diff was > added to git-format-patch merely as a convenience over having to run > git-range-diff separately and copy/pasting its output into a cover > letter generated by git-format-patch. If the two programs default to > different values, then that "convenience equality" breaks down. > > So, I'm fairly negative on this change. However, that doesn't mean I > would oppose tweaking the value shared between the two programs (and > also the default used by GitGitGadget, if it specifies it manually), > though I defer to Dscho in that regard. I think that was the intention initially, but at least I'm now using range-diff as a general comparison tool of different non-ff-branches, e.g. the force-pushes to "pu". I'd expect the tool in general to be used like that, whereas with format-patch it's safe to say we're dealing with a re-roll of the same thing. Hence the hypothesis that for format-patch we can be more aggressive about finding similarities.