Re: [PATCH 1/3] Resurrect "diff-lib.c: adjust position of i-t-a entries in diff"

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2016, 10:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8D28iq3r3O_uzjyyJT--KQunAySRgUthF3FMrb1VM6XKw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzimrj03j.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> After reading the three patches through, however, I do not think we
> use the command line option anywhere.  I'm inclined to say that we
> shouldn't add it at all.  Or at least do so in a separate follow-up
> patch "now we have an internal mechanism, let's expose it anyway" at
> the end.  Which means that the last sentence in my attempted rewrite
> should go.

We don't use it internally _yet_. I need to go through all the external diff code and see --shift-ita should be there. The end goal is still changing the default behavior and getting rid of --shift-ita, after making sure we don't break stuff. I do use it though because "git diff" is more often run in my workflow than "git status".

> As I already said, --shift-ita is not quite descriptive and I think
> it should be renamed to something else, but I kept that in the
> following attempt to rewrite:

It's meant to be a temporary thing (which could last a year or three, depending on how fast I scan through the code base) so I didn't give much thought on naming.

Umm... after a couple of minutes, I still couldn't think of any better. The one-line summary of this change is "correct the position of intent-to-add entries in diff", or as you put it more precisely (with a bit paraphrasing), "make ita entries not exist in index". I don't see any good way to shorten that to one or two words. --ita-not-in-index good enough? Or maybe --[no-]ita-visible-in-index.

-- 
Duy