Re: [PATCH 1/5] connect: split git:// setup into a separate function

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2017, 01:54 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqlgk19upq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYwARXNWRS4AgwTP7peZiWiwCBvWFiEr9TbpbWjgysfZA@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

> I think once this option is given, all we have to do is pay attention to
> this option in diff.c#moved_entry_cmp/next_byte, which is best built
> on top of Peffs recent fixes origin/jk/diff-color-moved-fix.
> Would that be of interest for people?

Two things and a half.

 * I was hoping that the next_byte() and string_hash() thing, once
   they are cleaned up, will eventually be shared with the xdiff/
   code at the lower layer, which needs to do pretty much the same
   in order to implement various whitespace ignoring options.  I am
   not sure how well the approach taken by the WIP patch meshes with
   the needs of the lower layer.

 * I agree that -w that applies only one or the other and not both
   may sometimes produce a better/readable result, but the more
   important part is how the user can tell when to exercise the
   option.  Would it be realistic to expect them to try -w in
   different combinations and see which looks the best?  What if we
   have a patch that touch two files, one looks better with -w only
   for coloring moved and the other looks better with -w for both?

 * As moved-lines display is mostly a presentation thing, I wonder
   if it makes sense to always match loosely wrt whitespace
   differences.  It is tempting because if it is true, we do not
   have to worry about the second issue above.

Thanks.