Re: [PATCH] attr: map builtin userdiff drivers to well-known extensions

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:05:27PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:

Am 16.12.2011 20:21, schrieb Jeff King:

quoted

I'm not clear from what you wrote on whether you were saying it is
simply sub-optimal, or whether on balance it is way worse than the
default funcname matching.

I'm saying the latter. Okay, we're talking "only" about hunk headers.
But when you are reviewing patches, they are *extremely* useful and a
time-saver; when they are wrong or not present, they are exactly the
opposite.

Right. I don't think it is worth arguing "well, it's only funcname
headers". Because that same argument applies to both the advantages
(i.e., hopefully with the patch we are generating better funcname
headers) and disadvantage (i.e., it seems that we might be generating
worse funcname headers).

So it is really a question of "how good" or "how bad" for each style.

Sure I have. What I didn't say (sorry for that!), but wanted to hint at
is that this is to experiment with a pattern in order to ultimately
improve the built-in pattern. The topic came up just the other day, and
I took Thomas Rast's suggestion to experiment with a simplified pattern:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/186355/focus=186439

But as is, the built-in pattern misses way too many anchor points in C++
code.

Yeah, I can certainly agree that the patterns could be better.

Maybe we should just table the extension mapping for now, then, and see
if the patterns improve? Or maybe just drop the C ones (and probably the
objc one based on other parts of the thread) and do the rest?

-Peff