[Python-Dev] hg diff
"Martin v. Löwis"
martin at v.loewis.de
Mon Mar 7 05:32:24 CET 2011
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Mon Mar 7 05:32:24 CET 2011
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] hg diff
- Next message: [Python-Dev] hg diff
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Am 07.03.2011 03:43, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: > "Martin v. Löwis" writes: > > Am 07.03.2011 02:24, schrieb Stephen J. Turnbull: > > > "Martin v. Löwis" writes: > > > > It seems that the dev guide recommends to use the --git option in hg > > > > diff. I'm working on the Rietveld integration, and found that this > > > > option makes things worse: the regular diff includes the base revision > > > > of the patch; hg diff --git doesn't. > > > > > > Does the regular diff work acceptably for the kinds of changes that > > > diff --git was designed to be an improvement for? > > > > I don't know. What are the kinds of changes that diff --git was designed > > for? > > I don't know exactly how much of git diffcore has been implemented in > hg diff --git. However, git's diff handles renames and copies > correctly and pleasantly, including swapping file names (ie, renaming > a to b and b to a simultaneously), and can change file modes. > > That kind of change is rather unpleasant to deal with in a traditional > diff format. Eg, renames are represented as deleting all the lines > from one file and re-adding them as a new file. Ok, so the next question is what constitutes an acceptable representation. I find the original approach to diff completely acceptable, also considering that people rarely rename files, and if they do, they typically don't put patches into a bug tracker. Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] hg diff
- Next message: [Python-Dev] hg diff
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list