Re: git-diff bug?

From: Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "René Scharfe" <l.s.r@web.de>, git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git-diff bug?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:14:07 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALO-gusFac+GNrB9Rcbqteyv+gs5h0A-PTxnwRswZMhTnNBFyA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqlffjs8ws.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:15 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> writes:
>
> > How is it valid?
>
> Just this part.  Any patch output that correctly explains how the
> preimage text changed to the postimage text is a "valid" diff, and
> that is how René used the word.

To be clear, the "valid" in my question is about the correctness of
the expected behavior, which (as I disclaimed) is likely a problem of
the text that explains these expectations.  If validity is only about
the correctness of the resulting transform, then it is obviously
valid, as well as the other alternatives that you included (and
therefore this is not the meaning that I used, otherwise I wouldn't
have sent this).

In any case, I think that I now see the problem: the (sparse)
explanation says "Ignore changes whose lines are all blank.".  It
would have been helpful to clarify with "(but blank likes that are
*part of* a change are still shown)".

Thanks,
-- 
                   ((x=>x(x))(x=>x(x)))                  Eli Barzilay:
                   http://barzilay.org/                  Maze is Life!