On 16.06.2011 01:14, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 14:44:45 +0200:
>> On 15.06.2011 14:11, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>>> If you have a different definition of "mis-synchronizes", please explain.
>>> No, I don't mean a broken diff. The diff should at all times be
>>> *correct*. That was indeed never questioned.
>>> I mean something like the example Neels gave with his initial approach
>>> for avoid the mis-matching empty line problem. With the naive
>>> solution, he gave an example of where it's not nice:
>> But when would the current "minimal" diff be preferable to the nicest,
>> albeit not minimal, diff we can produce? After all, the fix and/or
>> patience diff result is not only nicer to look at, it also gives better
>> results for blame, which is the other big diff consumer. Likewise, it'll
> Why doesn't 'svn blame' take --diff-cmd then?
Because --diff-cmd can launch some external interactive tool, and I'm
sure you don't want to do that while diffing fifteen hundred revisions
Received on 2011-06-16 12:33:16 CEST