Junio C Hamano writes:
> I do not think you should step outside diff_flush(). Only when
> producing textual diff, you would have to run the textual diff
> twice by going over the q twice:
>
> * The first pass would run diff_flush_patch(), which would call
>into xdiff the usual way, but the
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> When moving code (e.g. a function is moved to another part of the file or
> to a different file), the review process is different than reviewing new
> code. When reviewing moved code we are only interested in the diff as
> where there are diff
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>> * On 2/2, doing it at xdiff.c level may be limiting this good idea
>>>to flourish to its full potential, as the interface is fed only
>>>one diff_filepair at a time.
>>
>> I realized that after I impleme
Stefan Beller writes:
>> * On 2/2, doing it at xdiff.c level may be limiting this good idea
>>to flourish to its full potential, as the interface is fed only
>>one diff_filepair at a time.
>
> I realized that after I implemented it. I agree we would want to have
> it function cross file.
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> A line is colored differently if that line and the surroundign 2 lines
>> appear as-is in the opposite part of the diff.
>>
>> Example:
>> http://i.imgur.com/ay84q0q.png
>>
>> Or apply these patches and
>> git
Stefan Beller writes:
> A line is colored differently if that line and the surroundign 2 lines
> appear as-is in the opposite part of the diff.
>
> Example:
> http://i.imgur.com/ay84q0q.png
>
> Or apply these patches and
> git show e28eae3184b26d3cf3293e69403babb5c575342c
> git show bc92
6 matches
Mail list logo
