Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Add diff --porcelain option for --color-words

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Junio C Hamano
Date: Saturday, April 3, 2010 - 12:15 pm

Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> writes:


How readable can you make this for human consumption while still keeping
it machine readable?  The answer could be it already is human readble.

Two reasons I ask the above question are that I find the feature quite
interesting, and would want to see if it can be also fed to humans, and
that the combination of this new option and the existing --color-words is
misnamed.

What you are giving "git diff" is "word-level diff" as opposed to the
usual "line-level diff", isn't it?  The machinery may have already been
there, but it had a hardwired representation of the result to color pre-
and post- image words, and you are giving the result from the machinery
another representation with this patch.  If you call this --word-diff,
then it would become more clear that --color-words perhaps should have
been called --word-diff=color or something.

Besides, --porcelain invites "what does it do without --color-words?", to
which you wouldn't have a good answer, as non word-diff output is already
machine readable.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC PATCH 0/2] gitk --color-words, Thomas Rast, (Tue Mar 30, 5:52 pm)
[PATCH v2 0/2] gitk --color-words, Thomas Rast, (Sat Apr 3, 11:06 am)
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Add diff --porcelain option for --color ..., Junio C Hamano, (Sat Apr 3, 12:15 pm)
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gitk --color-words, Paul Mackerras, (Sun Apr 4, 11:40 pm)
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gitk --color-words, Thomas Rast, (Mon Apr 5, 3:21 am)