Re: [PATCH 2/4] Tweak diff output further to make it a bit less distracting.

Dear diary, on Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:28:31AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] told me that...

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

    # mode: 100644 100755 nitfol
    --- a/nitfol
    +++ b/nitfol

quoted

    @. 100644 100755 nitfol
    --- a/nitfol
    +++ b/nitfol

I have to say, I muct prefer the first over the second.

Glad. :-)

One final note: I actually think that "rename patches" make a ton of 
sense, even if git itself doesn't track renames. If we ever have a "smart 
diff" thing that can generate inter-file diffs, I'd like to eventually see

	diff -git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c.old
	rename kernel/sched.c kernel/sched.c.old
	old mode 100644
	new mode 100755
	--- a/kernel/sched.c
	+++ b/kernel/sched.c.old
	@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
	 /*
	- *  kernel/sched.c
	+ *  kernel/sched.c.old
	  *
	  *  Kernel scheduler and related syscalls
	  *

Notice? We could have a mode change, a rename _and_ a content change, all
at the same time under the same header. That's obviously a totally idiotic
example, but the point is that if we have a nice "extended diff header"
setup, the format is very easily able to accomodate things like this.

Actually, if the git diff format is fixed, do we even need the explicit
rename line? It could be enough if the filenames on the diff line would
be just different. Or you want it because of clarity?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor