Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:47
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option · Antoine Pelisse <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option · Antoine Pelisse <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH] diff: add --ignore-blank-lines option · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Antoine Pelisse [off-list ref] writes:
Re-reading note: OK, This last sentence ("If not we will eventually be
too far and break") is actually a bug. We might break before we find
something interesting while we should keep going. For example in such
a case, we should display like this, but won't:Glad to see that my question has helped ;-)
quoted hunk
quoted
This is on the else side of if (!xch->ignore), so we are looking at ignored hunk, which means there is only blank line change. Can chg2 be 0 while chg1 is not zero, i.e. xch being a blank line removal?Exactly. It can be a blank line removal. But I don't want to consider it in the calculation. Here's why: ... What should be the output of diff --ignore-blank-lines ? I chose this alternative:@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +change 1 2 3@@ -7,3 +5,4 @@ 4 5 6 +changeWhile one could have chosen:@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@ +change 1 2 3 - - - - 4 5 6 +change... Nothing is interesting here, we just leave the interesting zone (if not already left) because everything else failed.
Yes, that asymmetry is what I was wondering if we want to have. If we show additional blanks as a significant event, I am not so sure we can say "Nothing is interesting here". I do not feel strongly either way, but it just felt somewhat inconsistent. Thanks.