Re: [PATCH 2/2] Document the --histogram diff option
- From
Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
- Date
- Mar 6, 2012, 20:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87fwdl1mwl.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vd38psdt4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
> Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes: > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> >> --- >> >> This is only the minimal update. I think in the long run, we should >> add a note saying why we support all of them. But off hand I didn't >> have any substantial evidence in favour of patience that could be used >> as an argument. > > Isn't the main argument made by proponents of patience diff is more > readable output, and not performance? That line of argument relies > on a fairly subjective test "which one is easier to read?", so it is > hard to come up with a substantial evidence, unless somebody invests > in A/B test.
Well, I was just too lazy to look up what I dimly remembered people had posted at some point: examples where patience beats Myers for readability. E.g.,
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/104316
I don't think you need a blind test to justify that the patience result is more readable. So I think in the long run, the docs should say something like:
--diff-algorithm={histogram|myers|minimal|patience}::
Choose a diff algorithm. The variants are as follows:
+
--
histogram::
This is the fastest algorithm, and thus the default.myers::
The classical Myers diff algorithm. <state a reason why myers
would be useful>minimal::
Like 'myers', but spend extra time making sure that the diff
is the shortest possible for the set of changes performed.patience::
The patience diff algorithm, which first matches unique lines
with each other. This sometimes results in more readable (if
longer) patches than the other algorithms.
--Or whatever -- magic is required to have a nested list in asciidoc. I can't be bothered to twiddle with that right now.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch