From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17388: 24.4.50; REGRESSION: Ediff - 1) wrong face, 2) incorrect diffing Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 13:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <12ee0dda-6f13-4056-8130-79aefdd4bbbe@default> References: <> <<87wqe43t55.fsf@rosalinde.fritz.box>> <> <<111c9271-6a23-426e-adb2-ff5520c02806@default>> <<83a9az1hok.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83y4yizue3.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1399150661 17972 80.91.229.3 (3 May 2014 20:57:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 20:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17388@debbugs.gnu.org, kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 03 22:57:34 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wggzu-0006hg-3d for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 22:57:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50223 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wggzt-0005oM-Qv for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:57:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40380) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wggzh-0005nw-LX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:57:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WggzX-00009t-0O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:57:13 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:60881) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WggzW-00009k-St for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WggzW-0004gj-4N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 20:57:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17388 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17388-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17388.139915059017973 (code B ref 17388); Sat, 03 May 2014 20:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17388) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2014 20:56:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49999 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wggyz-0004fo-PZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:56:30 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:41763) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wggyw-0004fX-N1 for 17388@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:56:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id s43KuFSP005997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 May 2014 20:56:16 GMT Original-Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s43KuDSF006333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 May 2014 20:56:14 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s43KuD3q004479; Sat, 3 May 2014 20:56:13 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83y4yizue3.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.8 (707110) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:88602 Archived-At: > > > > There should be EITHER, (a) as previously, NO fine diffs shown for > > > > other than the current diff OR (b) CORRECT (helpful) fine diffs > > > > shown for the non-current diffs. > > > > > > Ediff's "fine diffs" are word-granular. That is, Ediff breaks each > > > line into "words", then passes the result to the Diff program for > > > comparisoon, and reflects the results with different faces. AFAIR, > > > this has always been that way. > > > > OK, so you are saying that Emacs has silently changed to (b) from (a), > > and the way it does fine diffs corresponds to what is shown. >=20 > Yes. But Stefan now changed it back. He did? I thought he fixed only #1: the use of face `default'. I didn't think that he also got rid of the new fine-diffing for non-current diffs. If he did, then both #1 and #2 should presumably be fixed. > Therefore, I was talking only about the 2nd part of your report, which > complains that the fine diffs are incorrect. If Stefan got rid of the change to fine-diffing for non-current diffs then it doesn't matter whether that fine-diffing was inaccurate. > > It is a change in behavior wrt older Emacsen, which do not show fine > > diffs within the non-current diffs. >=20 > Again, that part is now gone; Emacs behaves like before: it shows fine > diffs only in the current hnunk. OK, if you say so. Great. I didn't notice that in the patch he sent. > > But more importantly, "REGRESSION" in the subject line is for the bug > > report, and #1 is the more serious part: removing diff highlighting > > from part of a diff gives the impression that that unhighlighted text > > is not different. >=20 > #1 is solved; do you agree that #2 is not a bug, but the intended > behavior that was always there? #2 was that non-current diffs were being fine-diffed, and that fine-diffing was inaccurate. It was explained to me that fine-diffing is inaccurate in this way generally. IOW, this has nothing to do with the fact that they were now applied to non-current diffs. If fine-diffing is inaccurate in general (call it word-diffing or whatever, if that helps), then so be it. I am OK with #1 being fixed. I am OK with #2 also being reverted to not showing fine diffs for non-current. I am OK also with fine diffs being shown for non-current (given that #1 is fixed, so they are not shown with face `default'). I understand now that the inaccuracy of fine diffs that I pointed out is apparently general and not something new for only non-current fine diffing.