3 ms·

I'm glad that real-life diff tools work in ways that they deem to be useful. But they don't always produce the most sensible result. In fact different algorit

I'm glad that real-life diff tools work in ways that they deem to be useful. But they don't always produce the most sensible result. In fact different algorithms produce different diff visualizations for the same input. I'm just a little uncomfortable with a feature that uses diffs for purposes other than display for humans, since they don't seem to be consistently defined.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> I'm just a little uncomfortable with a feature that uses diffs for purposes other than display for humans, since they don't seem to be consistently defined. Sure, I see your point as it applies to cherry-picks/rebasing. Yes, there's no formal guarantee it will do as you expect. The user should always check it manually. Occasionally it doesn't do what you want. I'm of the opinion git cherry-pick should default to behaving like git cherry-pick --no-commit for that reason. edit: > they don't always produce the most sensible result I don't know how much work has been done on language-aware diff/merge algorithms, but I can't see an obvious reason for it to be a dead-end.
tsimionescu 6y ago
> I'm just a little uncomfortable with a feature that uses diffs for purposes other than display for humans Git is based on the idea that it is generally safe to do that. You can't do any kind of work with git other than commits on your own local repo without relying on diffs and merges based on diffs.