Re: range-diff, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2018, #03; Wed, 25)

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > FWIW I picked up your Asciidoc-underline fix, and I also fixed a typo in a
> > commit message (you may want to pick that up, too, unless you want me to
> > send a full new iteration, I don't care either way):
> 
> Meaning that if you send a full new iteration it would match what we
> have on 'pu' plus the one-liner below?  I think we can do without
> such a resend, because everybody has seen all there is to see if
> that is the case.
> 
> > -- snipsnap --
> > 11:  bf0a5879361 ! 11:  0c1f5db5d01 range-diff: add tests
> >     @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> >          range-diff: add tests
> >      
> >          These are essentially lifted from https://github.com/trast/tbdiff, with
> >     -    light touch-ups to account for the command now being names `git
> >     +    light touch-ups to account for the command now being named `git
> >          range-diff`.
> >      
> >          Apart from renaming `tbdiff` to `range-diff`, only one test case needed
> 
> I'll need to remember to rebuild es/format-patch-rangediff after
> amending bf0a587936 with this, but I think I should be able to push
> out the result in today's round.
> 
> If any other issue arises, I do not mind taking an update, either,
> but I think at this point the topic is reaching the point of
> diminishing returns and should switch to incremental.