The Art of Manually Editing Hunks (opens in new tab)

(kennyballou.com)

25 pointsalraj1y ago18 comments

18 comments

Sounds like a problem for rediff (https://github.com/twaugh/patchutils).

Instead of directly editing the unified diff file, make a copy and edit the copy. Once you’re done, call rediff original-patch edited-patch to get a patchfile with fixed offsets.

Note that rediff only fixes your offsets, and doesn’t remove empty hunks. patch is not happy about empty hunks existing, so if you happen to revert all changes in a hunk, remember to delete the hunk after rediff. Probably this ought to be contributed back upstream.

lionelw1y ago

If this is about staging partial file changes, then I think this is where git GUIs especially excel. It's typically a matter of selecting and deselecting individual lines of change. The concept and term "hunk" (to mean a group of lines, and honestly "chunk" would've been a better choice) never shows up. Pretty intuitive and foolproof.

I've used Git Cola on Linux and Github Desktop on Windows. Both free.

your_fin1y ago

For the TUI inclined, lazygit [1] and magit (emacs) [2] both have quick and intuitive ways of handling this. They're also both wonderful companions to the git cli for day to day version control.

[1]: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit

[2]: https://magit.vc/

ris1y ago

Further to this, don't underestimate how powerful git diff | sed | git apply can be for mass edits of files.

impure1y ago

Yeah, you can do this to make your commits cleaner, but I find it easier to just manually edit the file and then undo after you add the patch.

recursive1y ago

I've never felt the urge to commit half of a file, but if I did, surely I would just copy the whole file to scratch buffer somewhere, edit the real file to the first state I want, and then commit that.

Some people say they have to re-learn regular expressions each time they use them. I think this is mostly because they don't use them much. For me, I have to re-learn fancy git stuff like hunk staging each time I use it. Because I never use it.

mananaysiempre1y ago

I don’t know, I feel that having to go through each change individually before committing is useful discipline. Nothing to learn: just tell yourself to only ever use `git add -p` and the rest will come naturally. Your first edited hunk, in particular, will come the first time you want to stage your actual change without having to delete that debug print that you figure might still come in handy. (Also useful but admittedly situational are git checkout -p, git reset -p, and git stash -p; and editing hunks within those is a bit of a rarity.)

I guess the difference might be that my workflow is less edit → stage → commit and more edit → (stage things I’m sure about → edit/debug things I’m not →)* commit. For example, “the staged version is what I have in the debugger, modulo debugging code” can be a useful invariant to maintain. (Now that I’m thinking about it, having the build system automatically save a snapshot of the source it used somewhere in the VCS—and stamp it in the executable—sounds tremendously useful. Surely somebody’s already built that?..)

1 more reply

PittleyDunkin1y ago

I use hunk editing quite a bit to organize long chains of commits into more logical order. This often involves merging and then re-splitting commits, but sometimes interactive rebasing is sufficient.

self_awareness1y ago

I originally thought this was about editing AmigaOS executable files. Those contain HUNKs.

kelnos1y ago

The article mentions this, but suggests that doing it that way is error-prone, and if you accidentally make changes after your undo, but before your redo, you can lose the changes you want to save.

I do it your way often too, but I'm going to give hunk editing a try; assuming it isn't too difficult to get right, it feels safer and ultimately easier.

rapidlua1y ago

Is it just me, or the piece doesn’t explain how to make edits without messing up the hunk?

mananaysiempre1y ago

If you were actually editing a patch file, that would be a concern; but in Git, you only edit one hunk at a time, so all’s fine as long as you don‘t mess up the context lines—Git will ignore the source and destination line numbers and counts that your editing has likely rendered incorrect. (An easy way to mess up the context lines is to have your editor strip trailing whitespace on save, as the unified diff syntax for an empty context line is a single space. If anybody asks, in no way did this cause me to be puzzled for literal weeks by hunk edits failing seemingly at random.)

rapidlua1y ago

I do occasionally attempt to edit patch files produced by git-format-patch. Frequently I end up with corrupt patch. Still curious how to fix those numbers.

1 more reply

kelnos1y ago

Yeah, I was hoping for some simple rubric/trick/rules to help when needing to edit a diff file manually. Since 'git add -p' handles updating the hunk metadata for you, it handles what I'd consider the hard part.

Optimal_Persona1y ago

I honestly thought this would be about retouching photos of buff men!

jccc1y ago

“Stage this hunk!”

(As a gay man, I appreciate an extended and detailed discussion of hunks finally appearing on HN.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

18 comments

qazxcvbnm1y ago

Sounds like a problem for rediff (https://github.com/twaugh/patchutils).

Instead of directly editing the unified diff file, make a copy and edit the copy. Once you’re done, call rediff original-patch edited-patch to get a patchfile with fixed offsets.

lionelw1y ago

I've used Git Cola on Linux and Github Desktop on Windows. Both free.

your_fin1y ago

For the TUI inclined, lazygit [1] and magit (emacs) [2] both have quick and intuitive ways of handling this. They're also both wonderful companions to the git cli for day to day version control.

[1]: https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit

[2]: https://magit.vc/

ris1y ago

Further to this, don't underestimate how powerful git diff | sed | git apply can be for mass edits of files.

impure1y ago

Yeah, you can do this to make your commits cleaner, but I find it easier to just manually edit the file and then undo after you add the patch.

recursive1y ago

mananaysiempre1y ago

1 more reply

PittleyDunkin1y ago

I use hunk editing quite a bit to organize long chains of commits into more logical order. This often involves merging and then re-splitting commits, but sometimes interactive rebasing is sufficient.

self_awareness1y ago

I originally thought this was about editing AmigaOS executable files. Those contain HUNKs.

kelnos1y ago

The article mentions this, but suggests that doing it that way is error-prone, and if you accidentally make changes after your undo, but before your redo, you can lose the changes you want to save.

I do it your way often too, but I'm going to give hunk editing a try; assuming it isn't too difficult to get right, it feels safer and ultimately easier.

rapidlua1y ago

Is it just me, or the piece doesn’t explain how to make edits without messing up the hunk?

mananaysiempre1y ago

rapidlua1y ago

I do occasionally attempt to edit patch files produced by git-format-patch. Frequently I end up with corrupt patch. Still curious how to fix those numbers.

1 more reply

kelnos1y ago

Optimal_Persona1y ago

I honestly thought this would be about retouching photos of buff men!

jccc1y ago

“Stage this hunk!”

(As a gay man, I appreciate an extended and detailed discussion of hunks finally appearing on HN.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse