From: Daniel Barkalow Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:10:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Tweak diff output further to make it a bit less distracting. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Mon, 16 May 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > One final note: I actually think that "rename patches" make a ton of > sense, even if git itself doesn't track renames. If we ever have a "smart > diff" thing that can generate inter-file diffs, I'd like to eventually see > > diff -git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c.old > rename kernel/sched.c kernel/sched.c.old > old mode 100644 > new mode 100755 I'd like something like: diff -git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c.old filename -- kernel/sched.c filename ++ kernel/sched.c.old mode -- 100644 mode ++ 100755 --- a/kernel/sched.c +++ b/kernel/sched.c.old @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ (etc.) because I actually start thinking of the two sides as "-" and "+", and I'd actually have to think about which is "old" and which is "new", and which way the "rename" line goes, and so forth. I'd actually be happier with just a "mode -- 100644" line for a deleted file, also. If I'm looking at a patch, and I read Makefile with '-' and '+' versions of the lists of objects, and then get to a "new file" line, I have to think about it to associate the '+' side with having the file and the '-' side with not having it. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*