Hi, On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote: >> The incredibly useful `git-tbdiff` tool to compare patch series (say, to see >> what changed between two iterations sent to the Git mailing list) is slightly >> less useful for this developer due to the fact that it requires the >> `hungarian` >> and `numpy` Python packages which are for some reason really hard to build in >> MSYS2. So hard that I even had to give up, because it was simply easier to >> reimplement the whole shebang as a builtin command. > > tbdiff is awesome; thanks for bringing it in as a builtin to git. > > I've run through a few cases, comparing output of tbdiff and > branch-diff. So far, what I've noted is that they produce largely the > same output except that: > > - tbdiff seems to shorten shas to 7 characters, branch-diff is using > 10, in git.git at least. (Probably a good change)
Sorry, a quick self-correction here: tbdiff, when using an actual shortened sha, uses 10 characters. But when a patch doesn't have a match, tbdiff seems to use seven dashes on one side in lieu of a shortened sha, whereas branch-diff will use 10 characters whether it has an actual shortened sha or is just putting a bunch of dashes there. So, this is definitely a good change. > - tbdiff aligned output columns better when there were more than 9 > patches (I'll comment more on patch 09/18) > - As noted elsewhere in the review of round 1, tbdiff uses difflib > while branch-diff uses xdiff. I found some cases where that mattered, > and in all of them, I either felt like the difference was irrelevant > or that difflib was suboptimal, so this is definitely an improvement > for me. > - branch-diff produces it's output faster, and it is automatically > paged. This is really cool. > > Also, I don't have bash-completion for either tbdiff or branch-diff. > :-( But I saw some discussion on the v1 patches about how this gets > handled... :-)
