vimdiff: show only difference between “base†and “remoteâ€
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm merging two branches in a project, which both changed the same part of some files in different ways. The "remote" branch is somewhat closer to the common ancestor ("base"), so I want to only show the differences between "base" and "remote"; by default, all lines different in any two files (I think) are highlighted, leaving a large region of highlighting with little useful information. Can I do this?
It would be better if I can simultaneously show the difference between "base" and "remote", and between "local" and "merged"; essentially, two diff sessions in one vim. Is this possible?
vim vimdiff
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm merging two branches in a project, which both changed the same part of some files in different ways. The "remote" branch is somewhat closer to the common ancestor ("base"), so I want to only show the differences between "base" and "remote"; by default, all lines different in any two files (I think) are highlighted, leaving a large region of highlighting with little useful information. Can I do this?
It would be better if I can simultaneously show the difference between "base" and "remote", and between "local" and "merged"; essentially, two diff sessions in one vim. Is this possible?
vim vimdiff
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I'm merging two branches in a project, which both changed the same part of some files in different ways. The "remote" branch is somewhat closer to the common ancestor ("base"), so I want to only show the differences between "base" and "remote"; by default, all lines different in any two files (I think) are highlighted, leaving a large region of highlighting with little useful information. Can I do this?
It would be better if I can simultaneously show the difference between "base" and "remote", and between "local" and "merged"; essentially, two diff sessions in one vim. Is this possible?
vim vimdiff
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
I'm merging two branches in a project, which both changed the same part of some files in different ways. The "remote" branch is somewhat closer to the common ancestor ("base"), so I want to only show the differences between "base" and "remote"; by default, all lines different in any two files (I think) are highlighted, leaving a large region of highlighting with little useful information. Can I do this?
It would be better if I can simultaneously show the difference between "base" and "remote", and between "local" and "merged"; essentially, two diff sessions in one vim. Is this possible?
vim vimdiff
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
asked Nov 20 '17 at 4:09
Imperishable Night
1134
1134
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I workaround this issue by using a tmux
- open a tmux
- split the tmux horizontally using ctrl-a-double_quote
- open vimdiffs individually
of course , you have to manage scrolling between the windows yourself - but that is the best shot with native vimdiff.
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this withgit mergetool, then I realized I can just run:!tmuxfrom the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)
– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I workaround this issue by using a tmux
- open a tmux
- split the tmux horizontally using ctrl-a-double_quote
- open vimdiffs individually
of course , you have to manage scrolling between the windows yourself - but that is the best shot with native vimdiff.
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this withgit mergetool, then I realized I can just run:!tmuxfrom the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)
– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I workaround this issue by using a tmux
- open a tmux
- split the tmux horizontally using ctrl-a-double_quote
- open vimdiffs individually
of course , you have to manage scrolling between the windows yourself - but that is the best shot with native vimdiff.
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this withgit mergetool, then I realized I can just run:!tmuxfrom the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)
– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I workaround this issue by using a tmux
- open a tmux
- split the tmux horizontally using ctrl-a-double_quote
- open vimdiffs individually
of course , you have to manage scrolling between the windows yourself - but that is the best shot with native vimdiff.
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
I workaround this issue by using a tmux
- open a tmux
- split the tmux horizontally using ctrl-a-double_quote
- open vimdiffs individually
of course , you have to manage scrolling between the windows yourself - but that is the best shot with native vimdiff.
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
answered Nov 20 '17 at 6:11
amisax
1,363314
1,363314
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this withgit mergetool, then I realized I can just run:!tmuxfrom the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)
– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
add a comment |Â
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this withgit mergetool, then I realized I can just run:!tmuxfrom the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)
– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this with
git mergetool, then I realized I can just run :!tmux from the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
I just learned about tmux today, and that's definitely a fine way to do it! I was about to ask how to do this with
git mergetool, then I realized I can just run :!tmux from the vim spawned by the mergetool, and be ready to go :)– Imperishable Night
Nov 22 '17 at 0:33
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f405704%2fvimdiff-show-only-difference-between-base-and-remote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password