On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Stefan Beller <stefanbel...@gmail.com> writes:
>> From: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com>
>> ---
> "X can do Y" can be taken as a statement of fact (to which "so
> what?"  is an appropriate response), a desire (to which "then please
> say 'make X do Y' instead" is an appropriate response), or a report
> of a bug (to which "please explain why X should be forbidden from
> doing Y" is an appropriate response).
> This is way under-explained.  I think this is "make X do Y" kind,
> and if so, please say so and possibly why it is a good idea to teach
> X how to do Y.
> Thanks.

Ok, I see the general pattern of your answers: Add more explanations.

Answering for
patch 01/10 as well as this one here:

    I want to propose an option to detect&color moved lines in a patch,
    which cannot be done in a one-pass over the diff. Instead we need to go
    over the whole diff twice, because we cannot detect the first line of a
    line pair that got moved in the first pass. So I aim for
    * collecting all output into a buffer as a first pass,
    * as the second pass output the buffer.

So in a later patch I will split up the emit_line_* machinery to either
emitting to options->file or buffering if we do the 2 pass thing.

To make sure the 2 passes work correctly, we need to make sure all output
is routed through the emit_line functions, and there will be no direct writes.

Now that we will be using the emit_lines functions for non colored
output as well,
we want to pass in "no color" which I think is best done via NULL and then not
calling the output of the color writes.

Reply via email to