Re: [RFH] xdiff shows trivially redundant diff.

Davide Libenzi [off-list ref] writes:

You are right.  GNU says -5,0 not -6,0 so presumably "patch"
other people use expect it to say -5,0 not -6,0; even though we
could argue the insertion happens at 6th position and saying
-6,0 is more logical, it does not matter -- what incumbent does
wins X-<.  I notice that your fix shows -5,0 to match it ;-).

Thanks for the fix.

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Davide Libenzi [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

For example, the first hunk says:

	@@ -0,0 +6 @@
       +#include "diff.h"

Which is inconsistent with what GNU diff says:

	@@ -5,0 +6 @@
       +#include "diff.h"

I've tried this patch but...

The fix is fine, but you should do the same even in the s2 case. The
correct hunk should have been:

@@ -6,0 +6 @@

You are right.  GNU says -5,0 not -6,0 so presumably "patch"
other people use expect it to say -5,0 not -6,0; even though we
could argue the insertion happens at 6th position and saying
-6,0 is more logical, it does not matter -- what incumbent does
wins X-<.  I notice that your fix shows -5,0 to match it ;-).

Yeah, I had to make it such that GNU patch could swallow it, otherwise it 
made no sense (being it right or not). Even the other issue is fixed now, 
and I'll send you a libxdiff-based diff as soon as it passes some tests.



- Davide