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 of history. -- Brane
