Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] output improvements for git range-diff

From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
To: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>,
	Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>,
	Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] output improvements for git range-diff
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 21:48:16 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1907052138370.44@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190705170630.27500-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com>

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Thomas Gummerer wrote:

> It's been quite a while since I sent the RFC [1] (thanks all for the
> comments on that), and the series changed shapes quite a bit since the
> last round.
>
> Since it's been such a long time, just to remind everyone, the goal of
> this series is to make the range-diff output clearer, by showing
> information about the filenames to which the current diff belongs.

Thank you for that reminder ;-)

> In the previous round, we did this using "section headers" that
> include information about the current file and adding that to the
> outer diff's hunk headers.
>
> In this round we still keep the section headers (with slightly more
> information), but in addition we also add the filename to the inner
> diff hunk headers.  In the outer diff hunk headers we then display
> either the section header or the inner diff hunk header using a
> userdiff pattern.

I like this idea!

> In terms of code changes the biggest change is that we're now re-using
> the 'parse_git_header' function from the apply code to parse the diff
> headers, instead of trying to parse them with some hacky parsing code
> in range-diff.c.  This way we are sure that the diff headers are
> properly parsed.

Yep, very good.

> I had also considered just outputting the section headers directly
> from 'git log', but then decided against that.  Parsing the headers
> allows a future enhancement of range-diff, where we would allow
> parsing an mbox file [2].

Thanks you for your consideration; I still would like to have the option
at some stage to compare a patch series from public-inbox.org/git to the
commits in `pu`, without having to fiddle with finding a valid base commit
to apply the patches on.

> I split the "only pass required data" commits up, in the hopes of
> making them easier to review, but I'm also happy to squash them if
> people feel like that makes it easier to review them.

I found it very easy to review in the current form, thank you for putting
in the extra effort.

> An added advantage of this is that we're also getting rid of things
> like the similarity index, which are not important in the range-diff,
> and are thus not represented in the "section header".
>
> One thing that did not change is that the new/deleted strings are not
> translated in this version either.  This is similar to the regular
> diff output, where we also don't translate these.  We can still
> consider translating them in the future though.
>
> [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/20190414210933.20875-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com/
> [2]: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/issues/207
>
> I'm including the range-diff between this version of the series and
> the RFC, and a diff between the range diff and the range-diff without
> these changes below.  Probably not useful in reviewing the code, but
> good to show off the changes made in this series.

Indeed!

I very much like the idea, and the current iteration. I offered a couple
of minor suggestions, in the hope that you find them helpful.

Thank you,
Dscho