From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:57:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] blame: accept multiple -L ranges
Message-ID: <7vtxk3v9vs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <87ehb7d3za.fsf@hexa.v.cablecom.net>

Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>  (2) In the ranges "-L <anything>,/B/ -L /C/,<anything>", the
>>      beginning of the second range is found by choosing C that comes
>>      _after_ the end of the previous range (/B/ may choose either
>>      the second or the 4th line, and the only C that comes after
>>      either of them is the 5th line and that is where the second
>>      range should begin, not at the beginning of the file).  The
>>      same for "-L 1,3 -L /C/" (only C that comes after 3 is eligible
>>      to be the beginning of the second range).
>
> So passing several -L arguments does not blame the union of what each
> argument would blame individually?  Doesn't that make it rather harder
> to explain?
>
> In any case, if you define it like that for blame, log -L should be
> changed to match.

I thought "log -L" was fundamnetally different as it is per path.
For example, -L1,100:hello.c and -L5,105:goodbye.c would not
intersect/overlap.

If you mean to coalesce -L1,100:hello.c and -L5,105:hello.c into a
single -L1,105:hello.c, then yes I think it makes sense.