Re: git and orgmode: teaching git a bit of orgmode syntax

[Nick Dokos <ndokos@gmail.com>]

Karl Voit <devnull@Karl-Voit.at> writes:

> Hi!
>
> I am using gitwatch[1] to auto-commit any changes to my org-mode
> files in a git repository.
>
> Unfortunately, git does not handle diffs in a meaningful way. For
> example, when there are sub-hierarchies added or removed, it ends up
> with many diff-lines like the following:
>
> -***** NEXT test with DAVdroid
> +* Lesestoff [1/26]                                        :2read:
>  :PROPERTIES:
> -:CREATED:  [2016-05-08 Sun 12:51]
> +:CREATED: [2012-04-17 Tue 10:39]
> +:ARCHIVE:  %s_archive::* Lesestoff
> +:CATEGORY: reading
>  :END:
>
> The two headings being compared by git are totally unrelated. Git
> did find a match for the :PROPERTIES: and :END: lines and therefore
> assumed that I modified the level five heading "NEXT test with
> DAVdroid" into the first level heading "Lesestoff", not recognizing
> that in fact, there were many org-mode lines moved to the archive
> file, resulting in many deleted lines instead of modified ones.
>
> The underlying issue is, to my understanding, that git does not know
> about Org-mode syntax elements. Git does not know that :PROPERTIES:
> and :END: lines should not be used to match similar lines. It does
> not know about headings, identifying CREATED time-stamps, and other
> things.
>
> I am not familiar with git other than from an end user point of
> view. But I do think that git can be taught here via some kind of
> extension so that meaningful changes are recognized and displayed.
>
> Is there somebody with the same issue and/or somebody with a better
> understanding how this issue can be addressed?
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1] https://github.com/nevik/gitwatch

You can plug in a different diff tool into git. The next problem is to
write/find/conjure a diff tool that *does* understand org syntax (at least
to some extent). IIRC, there was a GSOC(?) project to do that some years ago,
but I don't think it got finished (and maybe I'm misremembering in any case).
If that really exists[fn:1], maybe it can form a starting point for another push.

* Footnotes

[fn:1] I'd search, but Gmane still seems non-compos-mentis and
       searching in the archives is just awful (or my fu is too
       weak). Anybody know what is happening with Gmane?  How do you
       search the list nowadays?

-- 
Nick