Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #03; Mon, 5)

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>>>  "git diff" has been taught to optionally paint new lines that are
>>>  the same as deleted lines elsewhere differently from genuinely new
>>>  lines.
>>>
>>>  Are we happy with these changes?
>>
>> I advertised this series e.g. for reviewing Brandons
>> repo object refactoring series and used it myself to inspect
>> some patches there[1]. I am certainly happy (but biased) with
>> what we have available there.
>>
>> Jacob intended to use this series
>> for review as well, but has given no opinion yet.
>>
>> You seemed to have used it for js/blame-lib?
>>
>> --
>> Those patches had a wide reviewer audience cc'd,
>> so I would think people are aware of this series.
>
> I tried to, yes.  I haven't had a chance to see how well the current
> iteration fares "does the externally-visible goal make sense?" test.
>
> I do not think I saw a negative "an approach to show this kind of
> output would not be useful" reaction, so I assume at least people
> would want an alternative output format that would help reviewing a
> change that moves blocks of lines around.
>
> In any case, that is not a review.  A patch series wanting to do a
> good thing, and people agreeing that the externally visible effect
> it produces matches that good thing, is one thing.  A review that
> makes sure the code achieves the externally visible effect well
> (e.g. without overly inefficient algorithm, without buffer overflows
> or underflows, off-by-ones, etc.) is another thing, and I haven't
> seen anybody going with fine toothed comb to do that kind of review,
> hence my "are we happy?" inquiry.
>