From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:22:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] Teach --dirstat to not completely ignore rearranged lines within a file
Message-ID: <201104121122.56870.johan@herland.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vwrj0sap3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tuesday 12 April 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
> > I still feel that a file with 1000 rearranged lines should somehow
> > count "more" than a file with only 1 rearranged line,...
> 
> I think that is just entirely a different mode of operation.  I do not
> think it is wrong to have an alternative implementation of the dirstat
> damage counter that is based on numstat code.
> 
> It may end up counting the damage slower than the current code, and more
> importantly it will count a different kind of damage than the current
> code does, so we may probably want to make it an optional feature.

I wrote it up just for fun, and here's the patch. I'll leave it up to you
to decide if it's worth it.

First, though, I've got another patch to --dirstat, which - in the case
of renames, attributes the damage to the target filename instead of the
source filename. I found this more intuitive, especially in the case of
copies (-C -C) where damage would be attributed to the directory
containing the (unchanged) source file, instead of the directory
containing the (changed) target file.


Have fun! :)

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net