From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE141F5AE for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726751AbgG2SWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:22:08 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:41342 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726336AbgG2SWI (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:22:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 8140 invoked by uid 109); 29 Jul 2020 18:22:07 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 18:22:07 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 7063 invoked by uid 111); 29 Jul 2020 18:22:07 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:22:07 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:22:06 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] revision: add "--ignore-merges" option to counteract "-m" Message-ID: <20200729182206.GA2339835@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20200728163617.GA2649887@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200728163853.GB2650252@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:01:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > -m:: > > +--no-ignore-merges:: > > This invites a natural "does --ignore-merges exist, and if so what > does it do?" Why not to have "--[no-]ignore-merges" as a separate > entry immediately after the existing "-m" instead? I was hoping it would all be implied and I could dodge those questions. But it seems not. :) After thinking on it more, I flipped it to: -m:: --diff-merges:: [existing text...] and then I don't think we need to have another block for --no-diff-merges. I'll likewise add a statement that "-m" is implied by "--first-parent" and can be counteracted with the "--no" form, which I think should spell out all the implications of the series. -Peff