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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 30, 2018, 15:41 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwotcivco.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1807301510370.10478@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

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.

Show 11 quoted lines

> -- 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.