Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-29 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> As far as I am concerned, there is no A~B issue. > > You don't have to remind me about how hostile you are towards new > proposals. I already know. That's not "hostile" or "new". I only express strong doubt against "ideas" (or non-"ideas"

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-29 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: > As far as I am concerned, there is no A~B issue. You don't have to remind me about how hostile you are towards new proposals. I already know. > Please don't let it take good changes hostage. Those are my changes, and I will not check them in until I'm happy with them. H

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-29 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I had an impression that many of them, with the suggested fix-ups, >> were improvements, with or without the A~B discussion. It seems >> that the entire review wasted many braincycles if you are to drop >> the ball at this point, which is v

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-29 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Junio C Hamano wrote: > I had an impression that many of them, with the suggested fix-ups, > were improvements, with or without the A~B discussion. It seems > that the entire review wasted many braincycles if you are to drop > the ball at this point, which is very dissapointing. No, I don't meant

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-29 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes: > So, I decided to drop everything and just submit the first two parts. > Until we can decide what to do about the '..' and > '...' forms (new rev spec? overload existing rev spec > to change the meaning? deprecate without a viable alternative?), let's > leave them as

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-25 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
So, I decided to drop everything and just submit the first two parts. Until we can decide what to do about the '..' and '...' forms (new rev spec? overload existing rev spec to change the meaning? deprecate without a viable alternative?), let's leave them as it is. Nothing to resubmit. Junio: can

[PATCH 0/5] Documentation/git-diff.txt improvements

2013-04-24 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi again, So I decided that builtin/diff.c is hardcoded for the .. and ... forms, and we can do nothing about it unless we want to break compatibility (maybe a git 2.0 candidate?). The least we can do is document it properly in the SYNOPSIS. I've done this in [4/5]. The other patches are just g