Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Tuesday, Sept 25)

>
>
> On 9/26/2018 2:44 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>> On 9/26/2018 1:59 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps removing the middle columns of data and just "<sha> <num>) 
>> <line>" would be easier? We could also remove tabs to save space. For 
>> example:
>>
>> builtin/remote.c
>> 5025425dfff  864) return error(_("No such remote: '%s'"), name);
>>
>> commit-reach.c
>> b67f6b26e35 559) continue;
>> b67f6b26e35 569) from->objects[i].item->flags |= assign_flag;
>> b67f6b26e35 570) continue;
>> b67f6b26e35 576) result = 0;
>> b67f6b26e35 577) goto cleanup;
>>
>> ll-merge.c
>> d64324cb60e 379) marker_size = DEFAULT_CONFLICT_MARKER_SIZE;
>>
>> remote-curl.c
>> c3b9bc94b9b  181) options.filter = xstrdup(value);
>>
>> This does still pad the data by a bit, but should be more readable. 
>> Most "uncovered" code will be indented at least one level.
>>
>> We do lose the author information, but keen readers could identify 
>> code they are interested in by filename and then look up the commit 
>> by OID later.
>>
>
> I personally find the author data very useful as it makes it trivial 
> for me to scan for and find changes I'm responsible for. Just scanning 
> the output of the mail and looking for file names I may have changed 
> lately is much more laborious - meaning I'm much less likely to 
> actually do it :-).
>
> Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to put the author name once 
> with the block of changes (like you are doing for the file name) 
> rather than on every line that changed and wasn't executed.
>