From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sat, 14 May 2005 16:27:27 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resurrect diff-tree-helper -R Message-ID: <7vu0l5zsb4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20050514150356.GK3905@pasky.ji.cz> >>>>> "PB" == Petr Baudis writes: Now I understand which discussion I was missing ;-). PB> For humans I'd say "Mode change" instead of "mode" would be better, and PB> for machines I still think "@" would be better than "#". "#" can occur PB> quite naturally in some code snippets or whatever pasted to the commit PB> message, which is extremely unlikely for "@". What are the advantages PB> of "#"? Wait a minute. Aren't we scanning starting from the first '---\n'? Why does what's in commit message matter? And it is not really "Mode change" anymore. If you used to have file there and you replaced it with a symlink, that is 100644 to 120000 "mode change". I experimented with different things in where I have "# mode: " there and seriously considered to spell it "# git:" instead, because that is not really mode and it is something that means something special to git. Also I tried to say just "@. " --- it _was_ confusing to human eye, especially if you are used to reading diffs. What I think is that this should not really matter much for human consumption, because mode change is rare and type change is even more rare. PB> I like the rest. That's basically what I've imagined, and PB> without the arrows it's even better. :-) Here is what I'd propose for you to do. (1) Take the patch as is and commit; (2) Change the definition of git_prefix in diff.c to "\n@. " and commit; (3) If you already took the test suite, match t/t2000-diff.sh for the "\n@. " format, and commit. It will look something like this. thanks to the leading newline, the output becomes a bit less confusing (without that blank line, it really is a disaster for human eyes). @. 100644 100755 path0 --- a/path0 +++ b/path0 @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ Line 1 Line 2 -line 3 +Line 3 @. 100755 . path1 --- a/path1 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3 +0,0 @@ -Line 1 -Line 2 -line 3