1git-range-diff(1) 2================= 3 4NAME 5---- 6git-range-diff - Compare two commit ranges (e.g. two versions of a branch) 7 8SYNOPSIS 9-------- 10[verse] 11'git range-diff' [--color=[<when>]] [--no-color] [<diff-options>] 12 [--no-dual-color] [--creation-factor=<factor>] 13 ( <range1> <range2> | <rev1>...<rev2> | <base> <rev1> <rev2> ) 14 15DESCRIPTION 16----------- 17 18This command shows the differences between two versions of a patch 19series, or more generally, two commit ranges (ignoring merge commits). 20 21To that end, it first finds pairs of commits from both commit ranges 22that correspond with each other. Two commits are said to correspond when 23the diff between their patches (i.e. the author information, the commit 24message and the commit diff) is reasonably small compared to the 25patches' size. See ``Algorithm`` below for details. 26 27Finally, the list of matching commits is shown in the order of the 28second commit range, with unmatched commits being inserted just after 29all of their ancestors have been shown. 30 31 32OPTIONS 33------- 34--no-dual-color:: 35 When the commit diffs differ, `git range-diff` recreates the 36 original diffs' coloring, and adds outer -/+ diff markers with 37 the *background* being red/green to make it easier to see e.g. 38 when there was a change in what exact lines were added. 39+ 40Additionally, the commit diff lines that are only present in the first commit 41range are shown "dimmed" (this can be overridden using the `color.diff.<slot>` 42config setting where `<slot>` is one of `contextDimmed`, `oldDimmed` and 43`newDimmed`), and the commit diff lines that are only present in the second 44commit range are shown in bold (which can be overridden using the config 45settings `color.diff.<slot>` with `<slot>` being one of `contextBold`, 46`oldBold` or `newBold`). 47+ 48This is known to `range-diff` as "dual coloring". Use `--no-dual-color` 49to revert to color all lines according to the outer diff markers 50(and completely ignore the inner diff when it comes to color). 51 52--creation-factor=<percent>:: 53 Set the creation/deletion cost fudge factor to `<percent>`. 54 Defaults to 60. Try a larger value if `git range-diff` erroneously 55 considers a large change a total rewrite (deletion of one commit 56 and addition of another), and a smaller one in the reverse case. 57 See the ``Algorithm`` section below for an explanation why this is 58 needed. 59 60<range1> <range2>:: 61 Compare the commits specified by the two ranges, where 62 `<range1>` is considered an older version of `<range2>`. 63 64<rev1>...<rev2>:: 65 Equivalent to passing `<rev2>..<rev1>` and `<rev1>..<rev2>`. 66 67<base> <rev1> <rev2>:: 68 Equivalent to passing `<base>..<rev1>` and `<base>..<rev2>`. 69 Note that `<base>` does not need to be the exact branch point 70 of the branches. Example: after rebasing a branch `my-topic`, 71 `git range-diff my-topic@{u} my-topic@{1} my-topic` would 72 show the differences introduced by the rebase. 73 74`git range-diff` also accepts the regular diff options (see 75linkgit:git-diff[1]), most notably the `--color=[<when>]` and 76`--no-color` options. These options are used when generating the "diff 77between patches", i.e. to compare the author, commit message and diff of 78corresponding old/new commits. There is currently no means to tweak the 79diff options passed to `git log` when generating those patches. 80 81 82CONFIGURATION 83------------- 84This command uses the `diff.color.*` and `pager.range-diff` settings 85(the latter is on by default). 86See linkgit:git-config[1]. 87 88 89EXAMPLES 90-------- 91 92When a rebase required merge conflicts to be resolved, compare the changes 93introduced by the rebase directly afterwards using: 94 95------------ 96$ git range-diff @{u} @{1} @ 97------------ 98 99 100A typical output of `git range-diff` would look like this: 101 102------------ 103-: ------- > 1: 0ddba11 Prepare for the inevitable! 1041: c0debee = 2: cab005e Add a helpful message at the start 1052: f00dbal ! 3: decafe1 Describe a bug 106 @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ 107 Author: A U Thor <author@example.com> 108 109 -TODO: Describe a bug 110 +Describe a bug 111 @@ -324,5 +324,6 112 This is expected. 113 114 -+What is unexpected is that it will also crash. 115 ++Unexpectedly, it also crashes. This is a bug, and the jury is 116 ++still out there how to fix it best. See ticket #314 for details. 117 118 Contact 1193: bedead < -: ------- TO-UNDO 120------------ 121 122In this example, there are 3 old and 3 new commits, where the developer 123removed the 3rd, added a new one before the first two, and modified the 124commit message of the 2nd commit as well its diff. 125 126When the output goes to a terminal, it is color-coded by default, just 127like regular `git diff`'s output. In addition, the first line (adding a 128commit) is green, the last line (deleting a commit) is red, the second 129line (with a perfect match) is yellow like the commit header of `git 130show`'s output, and the third line colors the old commit red, the new 131one green and the rest like `git show`'s commit header. 132 133A naive color-coded diff of diffs is actually a bit hard to read, 134though, as it colors the entire lines red or green. The line that added 135"What is unexpected" in the old commit, for example, is completely red, 136even if the intent of the old commit was to add something. 137 138To help with that, `range` uses the `--dual-color` mode by default. In 139this mode, the diff of diffs will retain the original diff colors, and 140prefix the lines with -/+ markers that have their *background* red or 141green, to make it more obvious that they describe how the diff itself 142changed. 143 144 145Algorithm 146--------- 147 148The general idea is this: we generate a cost matrix between the commits 149in both commit ranges, then solve the least-cost assignment. 150 151The cost matrix is populated thusly: for each pair of commits, both 152diffs are generated and the "diff of diffs" is generated, with 3 context 153lines, then the number of lines in that diff is used as cost. 154 155To avoid false positives (e.g. when a patch has been removed, and an 156unrelated patch has been added between two iterations of the same patch 157series), the cost matrix is extended to allow for that, by adding 158fixed-cost entries for wholesale deletes/adds. 159 160Example: Let commits `1--2` be the first iteration of a patch series and 161`A--C` the second iteration. Let's assume that `A` is a cherry-pick of 162`2,` and `C` is a cherry-pick of `1` but with a small modification (say, 163a fixed typo). Visualize the commits as a bipartite graph: 164 165------------ 166 1 A 167 168 2 B 169 170 C 171------------ 172 173We are looking for a "best" explanation of the new series in terms of 174the old one. We can represent an "explanation" as an edge in the graph: 175 176 177------------ 178 1 A 179 / 180 2 --------' B 181 182 C 183------------ 184 185This explanation comes for "free" because there was no change. Similarly 186`C` could be explained using `1`, but that comes at some cost c>0 187because of the modification: 188 189------------ 190 1 ----. A 191 | / 192 2 ----+---' B 193 | 194 `----- C 195 c>0 196------------ 197 198In mathematical terms, what we are looking for is some sort of a minimum 199cost bipartite matching; `1` is matched to `C` at some cost, etc. The 200underlying graph is in fact a complete bipartite graph; the cost we 201associate with every edge is the size of the diff between the two 202commits' patches. To explain also new commits, we introduce dummy nodes 203on both sides: 204 205------------ 206 1 ----. A 207 | / 208 2 ----+---' B 209 | 210 o `----- C 211 c>0 212 o o 213 214 o o 215------------ 216 217The cost of an edge `o--C` is the size of `C`'s diff, modified by a 218fudge factor that should be smaller than 100%. The cost of an edge 219`o--o` is free. The fudge factor is necessary because even if `1` and 220`C` have nothing in common, they may still share a few empty lines and 221such, possibly making the assignment `1--C`, `o--o` slightly cheaper 222than `1--o`, `o--C` even if `1` and `C` have nothing in common. With the 223fudge factor we require a much larger common part to consider patches as 224corresponding. 225 226The overall time needed to compute this algorithm is the time needed to 227compute n+m commit diffs and then n*m diffs of patches, plus the time 228needed to compute the least-cost assigment between n and m diffs. Git 229uses an implementation of the Jonker-Volgenant algorithm to solve the 230assignment problem, which has cubic runtime complexity. The matching 231found in this case will look like this: 232 233------------ 234 1 ----. A 235 | / 236 2 ----+---' B 237 .--+-----' 238 o -' `----- C 239 c>0 240 o ---------- o 241 242 o ---------- o 243------------ 244 245 246SEE ALSO 247-------- 248linkgit:git-log[1] 249 250GIT 251--- 252Part of the linkgit:git[1] suite