Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] WIP xdiff: markup duplicates differently

[Jakub Narębski]

W dniu 04.09.2016 o 07:31, Stefan Beller pisze:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Jakub Narębski  wrote:
>> W dniu 03.09.2016 o 05:31, Stefan Beller pisze:
>>
>>> 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 differences in the moved code, e.g. namespace changes.
>>>
>>> However the inner part of these moved texts should not change.
>>> To aid a developer reviewing such code, emit it with a different prefix
>>> than the usual +,- to indicate it is overlapping code.
>>
>> What would be this different prefix?
> 
> I will discard the part of the different prefix as the design of 2/2
> will change.

It would be nice to have at least an option of using different prefix
(or pair of prefixes), as not always it is possible to use color to
markup duplicates.

P.S. BTW. does this work with word-diff?

Best regards,
-- 
Jakub Narębski

Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] WIP xdiff: markup duplicates differently

[Junio C Hamano]

Jakub Narębski  writes:

> Side note: I wonder if the cousin of unified diff, namely context diff[1],
> is something that we can and should support.

Yes, the lack of support for the copied context (instead of the
unified context) diff format has bugged me over the years.  Reading
copied context diff format however is rapidly becoming a lost art,
unfortunately, partly due to our popularity, and the need for the
format has become a lessor issue.

I wonder if a pair of a pre-processor (on the input side, before
running 'git apply') and a post-processor (on the output side,
munging the output from 'git show/diff') would be sufficient.

In any case, I agree with you that it has nothing to do with what
Stefan is doing here.

Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] WIP xdiff: markup duplicates differently

[Stefan Beller]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Jakub Narębski  wrote:
> W dniu 03.09.2016 o 05:31, Stefan Beller pisze:
>
>> 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 differences in the moved code, e.g. namespace changes.
>>
>> However the inner part of these moved texts should not change.
>> To aid a developer reviewing such code, emit it with a different prefix
>> than the usual +,- to indicate it is overlapping code.
>
> What would be this different prefix?

I will discard the part of the different prefix as the design of 2/2
will change.



>
>
> Side note: I wonder if the cousin of unified diff, namely context diff[1],
> is something that we can and should support.



>
> [1]: 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Context-Format.html
>  
> https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Detailed-Context.html
>
> *** lao 2002-02-21 23:30:39.942229878 -0800
> --- tzu 2002-02-21 23:30:50.442260588 -0800
> ***
> *** 1,7 
> - The Way that can be told of is not the eternal Way;
> - The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
>   The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
> ! The Named is the mother of all things.
>   Therefore let there always be non-being,
> so we may see their subtlety,
>   And let there always be being,
> --- 1,6 
>   The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
> ! The named is the mother of all things.
> !

So the line moved here?
Is it intentional that the line differs though?
(capitalisation of 'named")
Not sure I can read this diff correctly.

I think for this small side project I'd rather want
to 'just' support colors of moved code;)

>   Therefore let there always be non-being,
> so we may see their subtlety,
>   And let there always be being,
> ***
> *** 9,11 
> --- 8,13 
>   The two are the same,
>   But after they are produced,
> they have different names.
> + They both may be called deep and profound.
> + Deeper and more profound,
> + The door of all subtleties!

Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] WIP xdiff: markup duplicates differently

[Jakub Narębski]

W dniu 03.09.2016 o 05:31, Stefan Beller pisze:

> 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 differences in the moved code, e.g. namespace changes.
> 
> However the inner part of these moved texts should not change.
> To aid a developer reviewing such code, emit it with a different prefix
> than the usual +,- to indicate it is overlapping code.

What would be this different prefix?


Side note: I wonder if the cousin of unified diff, namely context diff[1],
is something that we can and should support.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Context-Format.html
 
https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Detailed-Context.html

*** lao 2002-02-21 23:30:39.942229878 -0800
--- tzu 2002-02-21 23:30:50.442260588 -0800
***
*** 1,7 
- The Way that can be told of is not the eternal Way;
- The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
  The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
! The Named is the mother of all things.
  Therefore let there always be non-being,
so we may see their subtlety,
  And let there always be being,
--- 1,6 
  The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
! The named is the mother of all things.
! 
  Therefore let there always be non-being,
so we may see their subtlety,
  And let there always be being,
***
*** 9,11 
--- 8,13 
  The two are the same,
  But after they are produced,
they have different names.
+ They both may be called deep and profound.
+ Deeper and more profound,
+ The door of all subtleties!