difflame improvements

Hi! Since my last post the biggest improvement is the ability to detect that the user has requested a "reverse" analysis. Under "normal" circumstances a user would ask difflame to get the diff from an ancestor (call "difflame treeish1 treeish2" so that merge-ba

Re: difflame improvements

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > >> This isn't difflame's fault; that's what "git blame" tells you about >> that line. But sin

Re: difflame improvements

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > This isn't difflame's fault; that's what "git blame" tells you about > that line. But since I already told difflame "v2.6.5..HEAD", it would > probably make sense to similarly limit the b

Re: difflame improvements

gh_logf("prune", "%s Duplicate loose object pruned\n", + sha1_to_hex(sha1)); unlink_or_warn(path); + } return 0; } Running difflame on it says this: $ python /path/to/difflame.py v2.6.5..HEAD -- builtin/prune-packed.

difflame improvements

e default value for its --inter-hunk-context option. * vn/diff-ihc-config: diff: add interhunk context config option And this is not telling me the _real_ revision where the lines were _deleted_ so it's not very helpful, as Peff has already mentioned. Running difflame: 23:06 $ time

Re: difflame

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > I have been "scripting around git blame --reverse" for some days now. > Mind taking a look? I've been working on blame-deletions for this. blame-deletions branch, that is Sorry for the previous top-posting.

Re: difflame

I have been "scripting around git blame --reverse" for some days now. Mind taking a look? I've been working on blame-deletions for this. 22:41 $ ../difflame/difflame.py HEAD~5 HEAD diff --git a/file b/file index b414108..051c298 100644 --- a/file +++ b/file @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@ ^1513353 (Ed

Re: difflame

ed and > blame the added lines (blame reverse to try to get as close as > possible with a single command in case I want to see what happened > with something that was deleted). If I could get blame information of > added/deleted lines in a single run, that would help a lot. > > L

Re: difflame

and blame the added lines (blame reverse to try to get as close as possible with a single command in case I want to see what happened with something that was deleted). If I could get blame information of added/deleted lines in a single run, that would help a lot. Lo and behold: difflame

Re: difflame

de > >> blame information as well (to see when something was added/removed). > > > > This is something I've wanted, too. The trickiest part, though, is > > blaming deletions, because git-blame only tracks the origin of content, > > not the origin of a change. > > Hm

Re: difflame

is something I've wanted, too. The trickiest part, though, is > blaming deletions, because git-blame only tracks the origin of content, > not the origin of a change. Hmph, this is a comment without looking at what difflame does internally, so you can ignore me if I am misunderstood what pr

Re: difflame

laming deletions, because git-blame only tracks the origin of content, not the origin of a change. For example, try this case: git init for i in $(seq 1 10); do echo $i >>file git add file git commit -m "add $i" done sed 4d tmp && mv tmp file git commit -

difflame

it could be worth to be added into git main (perhaps into contrib?). If you want to give ir a try: https://github.com/eantoranz/difflame Just provide the two treeishs you would like to diff (no more parameters are accepted at the time) and you will get the diff along with blame. Running it right now