Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > For many cases, I think textconv is a better experience. It is less > flexible (you must be able to transform the binary into something > textual, which is then diffed). But because of that it fits more neatly > into existing commands. I may be biased as the author of textconv, > though. ;) As the author of ext-diff, I very much agree. The daily maintenance of the drafts of "What's cooking" report is very much the only thing that I find a custom --ext-diff program very useful, but I suspect that even its use can probably be substituted with creative use of the textconv filter, diff hunk header patterns, and the -W option.