* Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" @ 2014-11-26 14:55 Ulrich Windl 2014-11-26 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ulrich Windl @ 2014-11-26 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git Hi! This is for git-1.7.12 (an older version from the SLES11 SP3 SDK). If the issue is solved meanwhile, I'll be happy, and I apologize for being too lazy to find out. Currently Git cannot split a block of changes like -AAA -BBB +CCC +DDD Into -AAA +CCC and -BBB +DDD So you'll have to edit it and waste me extra time (People probably use split if they know what they are doing, so maybe allow that). Another split that is not possible is a split across an empty line, like: +AAA + <empty line (in reality)> +BBB One could split that either into two parts with the empty lines belonging to one of AAA or BBB, or into three parts where the empty line is just another junk to accept or refuse. See comment above on why I'd like that. Regards, Ulrich Windl ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" 2014-11-26 14:55 Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" Ulrich Windl @ 2014-11-26 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-26 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-27 8:55 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-11-26 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ulrich Windl; +Cc: git "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz•uni-regensburg.de> writes: > This is for git-1.7.12 (an older version from the SLES11 SP3 SDK). If > the issue is solved meanwhile, I'll be happy, and I apologize for > being too lazy to find out. The answer is no ;-). > Currently Git cannot split a block of changes like > > -AAA > -BBB > +CCC > +DDD > > Into > -AAA > +CCC > and > -BBB > +DDD And it is unlikely to do so ever, because it is a wrong thing to do. What makes the user happy to see above split when the user is expecting this instead? -AAA and -BBB +CCC +DDD > Another split that is not possible is a split across an empty line, like: > > +AAA > + <empty line (in reality)> > +BBB Likewise. An empty line is not that special. AAA may be adding one block of lines "if (condition) { ... }" and BBB may be another, and it often happens that you would want to separate these into two changes, with or without an empty line in between. +if (foo) { + do foo thing +} +if (bar) { + do bar thing +} Having said all that, I am not opposed to a usable idea to allow the user to specify where in a contiguous block of -*+* to break a hunk and how. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" 2014-11-26 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2014-11-26 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-27 8:55 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-11-26 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ulrich Windl; +Cc: git Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes: > "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz•uni-regensburg.de> writes: > >> Another split that is not possible is a split across an empty line, like: >> >> +AAA >> + <empty line (in reality)> >> +BBB > > Likewise. An empty line is not that special. AAA may be adding one > block of lines "if (condition) { ... }" and BBB may be another, and > it often happens that you would want to separate these into two > changes, with or without an empty line in between. > > +if (foo) { > + do foo thing > +} > +if (bar) { > + do bar thing > +} > > Having said all that, I am not opposed to a usable idea to allow the > user to specify where in a contiguous block of -*+* to break a hunk > and how. Of course, splitting at blank or at any arbitrary point that the implementor of this new feature decides to be good is not end of the world. If the split at that chosen point is undesirable, the user can join them back. But then the feature did not help such a user very much. So that selection of "any arbitrary point" has to be fairly a good heuristic, making majority of users happy, to be worth for users to try. If they try splitting with the heuristics and get a good result 80% of times, 20% of time they instead may need to join the wrong splits back, but overall it will be a win. In an extreme case, we could have an option to split a run of zero or more "-" lines followed by zero or more "+" lines into one line per hunk, and let the user pick the line they want, which would solve your original issue of turning "-A-B+C+D" into "-A+C" and "-B+D", while allowing them to be commited with a different splitting, e.g. "-A" and "-B+C+D". But at that point, I suspect most people may choose to (e)dit the patch themselves instead. I dunno. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Antw: Re: Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" 2014-11-26 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-26 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2014-11-27 8:55 ` Ulrich Windl 2014-11-27 10:14 ` Johan Herland 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ulrich Windl @ 2014-11-27 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gitster; +Cc: git I probably forgot to mention the obvious: My enhancement request was for cases where git would reject so split a junk. I don't want to change the default split (if it finds a point to split). So maybe call it a "2nd-level-split". Only if split refuses to split, you could avoid using "edit" to manually split. Iknow that in gerneral such things can't be right, but you can eith reject the new junks or use "edit". I just guessed the feature could save some time on the average. >>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> schrieb am 26.11.2014 um 19:57 in Nachricht <xmqq3895rdr1.fsf@gitster•dls.corp.google.com>: > "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz•uni-regensburg.de> writes: > >> This is for git-1.7.12 (an older version from the SLES11 SP3 SDK). If >> the issue is solved meanwhile, I'll be happy, and I apologize for >> being too lazy to find out. > > The answer is no ;-). > >> Currently Git cannot split a block of changes like >> >> -AAA >> -BBB >> +CCC >> +DDD >> >> Into >> -AAA >> +CCC >> and >> -BBB >> +DDD > > And it is unlikely to do so ever, because it is a wrong thing to do. > > What makes the user happy to see above split when the user is > expecting this instead? > > -AAA > and > -BBB > +CCC > +DDD > >> Another split that is not possible is a split across an empty line, like: >> >> +AAA >> + <empty line (in reality)> >> +BBB > > Likewise. An empty line is not that special. AAA may be adding one > block of lines "if (condition) { ... }" and BBB may be another, and > it often happens that you would want to separate these into two > changes, with or without an empty line in between. > > +if (foo) { > + do foo thing > +} > +if (bar) { > + do bar thing > +} > > Having said all that, I am not opposed to a usable idea to allow the > user to specify where in a contiguous block of -*+* to break a hunk > and how. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" 2014-11-27 8:55 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl @ 2014-11-27 10:14 ` Johan Herland 2014-11-27 15:46 ` Brandon McCaig 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Johan Herland @ 2014-11-27 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ulrich Windl; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, Git mailing list On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz•uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > I probably forgot to mention the obvious: My enhancement request was > for cases where git would reject so split a hunk. I don't want to > change the default split (if it finds a point to split). > So maybe call it a "2nd-level-split". Only if split refuses to split, > you could avoid using "edit" to manually split. > I know that in general such things can't be right, but you can > either reject the new hunks or use "edit". I just guessed the feature > could save some time on the average. FWIW, I would very much like a "2nd-level split" where it simply splits into individual lines. I think it's not worth trying to be extra clever about it. For your example, I'd simply want the following behavior: -AAA -BBB +CCC +DDD Stage this hunk? SPLIT -AAA Stage this hunk? YES -BBB Stage this hunk? NO +CCC Stage this hunk? YES +DDD Stage this hunk? NO This would allow me to stage the following: -AAA +CCC and leave the following unstaged: -BBB +DDD but would also allow any other combination. ...Johan -- Johan Herland, <johan@herland•net> www.herland.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" 2014-11-27 10:14 ` Johan Herland @ 2014-11-27 15:46 ` Brandon McCaig 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Brandon McCaig @ 2014-11-27 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Johan Herland; +Cc: Ulrich Windl, Junio C Hamano, Git mailing list Hello, On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Johan Herland <johan@herland•net> wrote: > FWIW, I would very much like a "2nd-level split" where it simply splits > into individual lines. I think it's not worth trying to be extra clever > about it. For your example, I'd simply want the following behavior: > > -AAA > -BBB > +CCC > +DDD > Stage this hunk? SPLIT > > -AAA > Stage this hunk? YES > > -BBB > Stage this hunk? NO > > +CCC > Stage this hunk? YES > > +DDD > Stage this hunk? NO > > This would allow me to stage the following: > > -AAA > +CCC > > and leave the following unstaged: > > -BBB > +DDD > > but would also allow any other combination. Having (e)dited a lot of hunks manually I can see it being a bit difficult to understand line-by-line (but then I rarely split as it rarely does what I need so I'm not sure what use cases this would apply). I just had an idea about re-joining added lines in the output each time to show you what you're actually doing to the hunk with each prompt. I don't know if it's a good idea. Illustration: AAA BBB -CCC -DDD +EEE +FFF GGG Stage this hunk? s AAA BBB - CCC Stage this hunk? y AAA BBB -CCC - DDD Stage this hunk? n AAA BBB -CCC DDD + EEE Stage this hunk? y AAA BBB -CCC DDD +EEE + FFF GGG Stage this hunk? n In any case, I find that editing the hunk is generally faster than trying to figure out if split is going to do something useful (perhaps studying the Git code would help in that regard). That said, the key to making editing the hunk (or patches in general) efficient is adding keybindings to your favorite editor to edit unified diffs. In my Vim configuration I map ,, to a function that removes the current line change (removes - line, deletes + line) and ,. to add - to context lines. Both also always move down a line automatically and center that line on the screen, and have no effect on lines for which the chosen function has no meaning. So editing a hunk typically becomes ,, to remove unwanted changes from the current hunk or skip context lines and j to skip good lines to get to the next changes. Occasionally I use ,. to remove a context line that was in my original source. And if I want to invent a + line it's just o or O. The bit I'm editing remains in the middle of my screen with my whole screen for context. My relevant vimrc: autocmd FileType diff \ nnoremap ,, :call UndoPatch()<CR>| \ nnoremap ,. :s/^ /-/e<CR>:nohl<CR>jzz function! UndoPatch() normal! 0 if getline('.') =~ '^+' delete normal! zz return endif if getline('.') =~ '^-' s/^-/ / nohlsearch endif normal! j normal! ^ normal! zz endfunction Maybe that'll be useful for somebody else. Any editor suitable for a programmer will be able to do something similar. I suspect that customizing your editor will be time better spent. Regards, -- Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@gmail•com> <bamccaig@castopulence•org> Castopulence Software <https://www.castopulence.org/> Blog <http://www.bambams.ca/> perl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }. q{Vg qbrfa'\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.}; tr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say' ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-27 15:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-11-26 14:55 Extended splitting for "git add --interactive" Ulrich Windl 2014-11-26 18:57 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-26 20:24 ` Junio C Hamano 2014-11-27 8:55 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl 2014-11-27 10:14 ` Johan Herland 2014-11-27 15:46 ` Brandon McCaig
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox