On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 09:50:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Yeah, that's definitely better. Whether it's preferable over having it
after the signature separator I don't know. I personally liked that
version better, but can totally see why others may not like it.

I do not think anybody posted a version that writes inter/range diff
ater the signature mark.

No, I'm talking about the version that you hand crafted initially and
that kicked off this topic.

quoted

Hm. By now I've gotten a bit indifferent, to be honest. I'm not a 100%
sure whether it's an improvement or not, but I don't have a strong
opinion either way.

I am not sure what two you are comparing.  The current version with
inter/range diff that is before the diffstat and the proposed one
that places inter/range diff after the main patch?  Between them, I
do have a strong preference.

Yeah, that's the one I'm talking about.

Or placing the inter/range diff after the main patch, before or
after the signature mark?  As a reader of such a patch, I do not
have strong preference myself, either, but the signature mark is a
convention, established and honored for more than a few decades, to
say "no interesting contents come after this line".  I do not think
of a strong reason to go against that convention.

Well, agreed. I liked it because it rendered nicely for me, but as I
said, I can very much understand why others are not so thrilled.

We certainly could use the "---" after the main patch before we add
the inter/range diff.  I had such a version but its output looked
rather ugly.  Because the inter/range diff output are designed to be
very distinct from the usual patch, I'd say something as innocuous
as an extra blank line would be a good choice.

Fair enough. In any case, I think the result looks fine with the extra
blank line. I just don't have a strong preference between the old and
new formats by now. If you or others feel strongly I don't mind at all
if this patch lands.

Patrick