Re: FORMAT_PATCH_NAME_MAX increase

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: May 30, 2017, 12:41 UTC
Message-ID: <CACBZZX4-T50q_eVWwJuBzoC6ocuG+v14Tm8wfK8h7FB_cMQzdQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <85970ab4-e9c8-c6b6-11d3-faafd3ed0708@redhat.com>

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> (apologies for the self-followup:)
>
> On 05/30/17 14:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>> Note that in such an incremental review, I specifically wish to compare
>> patches against each other (i.e., I'd like to see diffs of diffs, AKA
>> interdiffs), and not the source tree at two, v1<->v2, commits into the
>> two series. The latter would only give me the difference between the v1
>> and v2 patch application results, and while that is valuable as well,
>> I'd really like to diff the actual patches.
>
> ... One (but not the only) reason for that is that I'd like to see the
> v1->v2 commit message improvements as well. I quite frequently suggest
> commit message improvements in review.

This all makes sense, I think a way to make this length configurable is the easiest/best solution to this.

Just curious do you know about https://github.com/trast/tbdiff ? If not it might have a high overlap with what you're doing.