Can I force git to treat a change as a single piece?
Occasionally I'll have a commit that completely rewrites a block of code, but has a few identical lines interspersed by chance. Git-diff divides the change into pieces around those lines, and the diff becomes hard to understand.
In such cases it would be nice to tell git "ignore single unchanged lines; act as if this entire block was deleted and replaced."
For example, I want to turn a diff that looks like this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
into this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
- with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
+ with random_matching_line as f:
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
Is there a way to do that, either when preparing a commit or viewing the log later?
git diff
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
add a comment |
Occasionally I'll have a commit that completely rewrites a block of code, but has a few identical lines interspersed by chance. Git-diff divides the change into pieces around those lines, and the diff becomes hard to understand.
In such cases it would be nice to tell git "ignore single unchanged lines; act as if this entire block was deleted and replaced."
For example, I want to turn a diff that looks like this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
into this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
- with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
+ with random_matching_line as f:
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
Is there a way to do that, either when preparing a commit or viewing the log later?
git diff
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
add a comment |
Occasionally I'll have a commit that completely rewrites a block of code, but has a few identical lines interspersed by chance. Git-diff divides the change into pieces around those lines, and the diff becomes hard to understand.
In such cases it would be nice to tell git "ignore single unchanged lines; act as if this entire block was deleted and replaced."
For example, I want to turn a diff that looks like this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
into this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
- with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
+ with random_matching_line as f:
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
Is there a way to do that, either when preparing a commit or viewing the log later?
git diff
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
Occasionally I'll have a commit that completely rewrites a block of code, but has a few identical lines interspersed by chance. Git-diff divides the change into pieces around those lines, and the diff becomes hard to understand.
In such cases it would be nice to tell git "ignore single unchanged lines; act as if this entire block was deleted and replaced."
For example, I want to turn a diff that looks like this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
into this:
-def rewritten_function(oldarg):
- do a
- do b
- with random_matching_line as f:
- do x
- do y
- do z
+def rewritten_function(newarg):
+ do z
+ do y
+ with random_matching_line as f:
+ do a
+ do b
+ do c
Is there a way to do that, either when preparing a commit or viewing the log later?
git diff
git diff
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
edited Nov 22 '18 at 18:35
Andrew
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
asked Nov 21 '18 at 0:51
AndrewAndrew
1,60121023
1,60121023
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
diff.interHunkContext's config says
Show the context between diff hunks, up to the specified number of lines,
thereby fusing the hunks that are close to each other. This value serves as
the default for the--inter-hunk-contextcommand line option.
which looks like exactly what you want.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53403800%2fcan-i-force-git-to-treat-a-change-as-a-single-piece%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
diff.interHunkContext's config says
Show the context between diff hunks, up to the specified number of lines,
thereby fusing the hunks that are close to each other. This value serves as
the default for the--inter-hunk-contextcommand line option.
which looks like exactly what you want.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
add a comment |
diff.interHunkContext's config says
Show the context between diff hunks, up to the specified number of lines,
thereby fusing the hunks that are close to each other. This value serves as
the default for the--inter-hunk-contextcommand line option.
which looks like exactly what you want.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
add a comment |
diff.interHunkContext's config says
Show the context between diff hunks, up to the specified number of lines,
thereby fusing the hunks that are close to each other. This value serves as
the default for the--inter-hunk-contextcommand line option.
which looks like exactly what you want.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
diff.interHunkContext's config says
Show the context between diff hunks, up to the specified number of lines,
thereby fusing the hunks that are close to each other. This value serves as
the default for the--inter-hunk-contextcommand line option.
which looks like exactly what you want.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
answered Nov 21 '18 at 1:05
jthilljthill
28.4k34580
28.4k34580
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
add a comment |
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I don't think it is...if I'm reading that right, it affects which changes are considered part of the same hunk; but I'm concerned with the display of the add/removes within what's already one hunk. Experimenting with it hasn't gotten me anywhere either. Maybe I should come up with a simplified example to add to the question.
– Andrew
Nov 21 '18 at 4:55
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
I see it now, the word "hunk" just has too much work to do, I was thinking of potential-conflict ranges, which can be separated by single matching lines, which aren't the same as what diff calls a hunk, that generally need three. An example would probably have helped. I don't know how to do what you're after, I suspect that'd be a welcome patch..
– jthill
Nov 21 '18 at 12:42
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53403800%2fcan-i-force-git-to-treat-a-change-as-a-single-piece%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
