Skip to content

gitk --color-words

Thomas Rast git 1 version In review

Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]

Versions newest first

  1. v1 Latest2 patches 7 repliesIn review

Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet

#Subject and filesSizeRepliesApplied
1/2diff: add --word-diff option that generalizes --color-wordsDocumentation/diff-options.txt Documentation/gitattributes.txt color.c +4 more+245 -5423 replies
1/2gitk: do not parse " >" context as submodule changegitk+10 -82 replies
2/2gitk: add the equivalent of diff --color-wordsgitk+34 -30 replies
2/2gitk: add the equivalent of diff --color-wordsgitk+61 -30 replies

Reviews trailers per patch

None of the 4 patches has a Reviewed-by or Acked-by.

Patch[email protected]
1/2T-b
1/2T-b
2/2
2/2

Trailers given in replies are filled; those carried in the patches from earlier versions are outlined with dashes.

Read the v1 thread

Cover letter [PATCH 0/2] gitk --color-words
Quoted 20 lines · Miles Bader
Quoted 7 lines · Junio C Hamano

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.

There's the format used by the "wdiff" program, which is more like traditional diff output in that it doesn't use color, but is human friendly, and also seems to be somewhat machine-parseable:

   $ echo 'This is a test' > /tmp/a
   $ echo 'This is funky test' > /tmp/b
   $ wdiff /tmp/a /tmp/b
   This is [-a-] {+funky+} test

[I say "somewhat" because wdiff itself doesn't appear to escape potentially ambiguous content, e.g., if there's actually a "{+" in the file....]

Quoted 3 lines · Junio C Hamano

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.

Excellent ideas! I don't have anything to add ;-)

This makes [1/2] a rather new patch though, I moved the whole prefix/suffix handing further out to accommodate different styles.

There's a little change in [2/2] apart from the obvious option renaming, too: it interprets --color-words and --word-diff as an initial setting for the checkbox.

Thomas Rast (2):
diff: add --word-diff option that generalizes --color-words
gitk: add the equivalent of diff --color-words

Read the cover letter in its thread