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

> On Mon, 16 May 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> I'd like something like:
> 
> diff -git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c.old
> filename -- kernel/sched.c
> filename ++ kernel/sched.c.old
> mode -- 100644
> mode ++ 100755
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c.old
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> (etc.)
> 
> because I actually start thinking of the two sides as "-" and "+", and I'd
> actually have to think about which is "old" and which is "new", and which
> way the "rename" line goes, and so forth. I'd actually be happier with
> just a "mode -- 100644" line for a deleted file, also. If I'm looking at a
> patch, and I read Makefile with '-' and '+' versions of the lists of
> objects, and then get to a "new file" line, I have to think about it to
> associate the '+' side with having the file and the '-' side with not
> having it.