[PATCH 0/3] Change "--diff-merges" to require parameter

[PATCH 0/3] Change "--diff-merges" to require parameter

[Sergey Organov]

These patches present a minimal set of changes to turn --diff-merges
to require parameter. For now we only introduce --diff-merges=off as
synonym for --no-diff-merges.

These are on top of jk/log-fp-implies-m "making --first-parent imply -m"
by Jeff King, that introduced --[no-]diff-merges as a boolean option to
provide ability to override implied -m by --no-diff-merges.

Sergey Organov (3):
  revision: change "--diff-merges" option to require parameter
  doc/git-log: describe --diff-merges=off
  t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

 Documentation/git-log.txt                     |  6 +-
 revision.c                                    |  9 ++-
 t/t4013-diff-various.sh                       |  1 +
 ...--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master

-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH 1/3] revision: change "--diff-merges" option to require parameter

[Sergey Organov]

--diff-merges=off is the only accepted form for now, a synonym for
--no-diff-merges.

This patch is a preparation for adding more values, as well as supporting
--diff-merges=<parent>, where <parent> is single parent number to output diff
against.

Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
---
 revision.c | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
index 669bc856694f..417659cfcb10 100644
--- a/revision.c
+++ b/revision.c
@@ -2323,8 +2323,15 @@ static int handle_revision_opt(struct rev_info *revs, int argc, const char **arg
 		revs->diff = 1;
 		revs->diffopt.flags.recursive = 1;
 		revs->diffopt.flags.tree_in_recursive = 1;
-	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "-m") || !strcmp(arg, "--diff-merges")) {
+	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "-m")) {
 		revs->ignore_merges = 0;
+	} else if ((argcount = parse_long_opt("diff-merges", argv, &optarg))) {
+		if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")) {
+			revs->ignore_merges = 1;
+		} else {
+			die(_("unknown value for --diff-merges: %s"), optarg);
+		}
+		return argcount;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "--no-diff-merges")) {
 		revs->ignore_merges = 1;
 	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "-c")) {
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH 2/3] doc/git-log: describe --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-log.txt | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-log.txt b/Documentation/git-log.txt
index 9ccba65469d7..f3727c786453 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-log.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-log.txt
@@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
 	rename or copy detection have been requested).
 
 -m::
---diff-merges::
 	This flag makes the merge commits show the full diff like
 	regular commits; for each merge parent, a separate log entry
 	and diff is generated. An exception is that only diff against
@@ -153,6 +152,11 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
 	in that case, the output represents the changes the merge
 	brought _into_ the then-current branch.
 
+--diff-merges=off::
+--no-diff-merges::
+	Disable output of diffs for merge commits (default). Useful to
+	override `-m`, `-c`, or `--cc`.
+
 :git-log: 1
 include::diff-options.txt[]
 
-- 
2.20.1

[PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
---
 t/t4013-diff-various.sh                       |  1 +
 ...--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master

diff --git a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
index 40e222c94520..86fb11cecc61 100755
--- a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
+++ b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
@@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ log --root -c --patch-with-stat --summary master
 # improved by Timo's patch
 log --root --cc --patch-with-stat --summary master
 log --no-diff-merges -p --first-parent master
+log --diff-merges=off -p --first-parent master
 log -p --first-parent master
 log -m -p --first-parent master
 log -m -p master
diff --git a/t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master b/t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c878f13c9519
--- /dev/null
+++ b/t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+$ git log --diff-merges=off -p --first-parent master
+commit 59d314ad6f356dd08601a4cd5e530381da3e3c64
+Merge: 9a6d494 c7a2ab9
+Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
+Date:   Mon Jun 26 00:04:00 2006 +0000
+
+    Merge branch 'side' into master
+
+commit 9a6d4949b6b76956d9d5e26f2791ec2ceff5fdc0
+Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
+Date:   Mon Jun 26 00:02:00 2006 +0000
+
+    Third
+
+diff --git a/dir/sub b/dir/sub
+index 8422d40..cead32e 100644
+--- a/dir/sub
++++ b/dir/sub
+@@ -2,3 +2,5 @@ A
+ B
+ C
+ D
++E
++F
+diff --git a/file1 b/file1
+new file mode 100644
+index 0000000..b1e6722
+--- /dev/null
++++ b/file1
+@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
++A
++B
++C
+
+commit 1bde4ae5f36c8d9abe3a0fce0c6aab3c4a12fe44
+Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
+Date:   Mon Jun 26 00:01:00 2006 +0000
+
+    Second
+    
+    This is the second commit.
+
+diff --git a/dir/sub b/dir/sub
+index 35d242b..8422d40 100644
+--- a/dir/sub
++++ b/dir/sub
+@@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
+ A
+ B
++C
++D
+diff --git a/file0 b/file0
+index 01e79c3..b414108 100644
+--- a/file0
++++ b/file0
+@@ -1,3 +1,6 @@
+ 1
+ 2
+ 3
++4
++5
++6
+diff --git a/file2 b/file2
+deleted file mode 100644
+index 01e79c3..0000000
+--- a/file2
++++ /dev/null
+@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
+-1
+-2
+-3
+
+commit 444ac553ac7612cc88969031b02b3767fb8a353a
+Author: A U Thor <author@example.com>
+Date:   Mon Jun 26 00:00:00 2006 +0000
+
+    Initial
+$
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  t/t4013-diff-various.sh                       |  1 +
>  ...--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master
>
> diff --git a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> index 40e222c94520..86fb11cecc61 100755
> --- a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> +++ b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
> @@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ log --root -c --patch-with-stat --summary master
>  # improved by Timo's patch
>  log --root --cc --patch-with-stat --summary master
>  log --no-diff-merges -p --first-parent master
> +log --diff-merges=off -p --first-parent master

I think we want to also test it in a different order, e.g.

    log --first-parent --diff-merges=off -p master

other than that, these three patches all look good to me.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  t/t4013-diff-various.sh                       |  1 +
>>  ...--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644
>> t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master
>>
>> diff --git a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>> index 40e222c94520..86fb11cecc61 100755
>> --- a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>> +++ b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>> @@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ log --root -c --patch-with-stat --summary master
>>  # improved by Timo's patch
>>  log --root --cc --patch-with-stat --summary master
>>  log --no-diff-merges -p --first-parent master
>> +log --diff-merges=off -p --first-parent master
>
> I think we want to also test it in a different order, e.g.
>
>     log --first-parent --diff-merges=off -p master

Dunno, why original Jeff series didn't need 

     log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p master

then?

> other than that, these three patches all look good to me.

Thanks,
-- Sergey

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  t/t4013-diff-various.sh                       |  1 +
>>>  ...--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644
>>> t/t4013/diff.log_--diff-merges=off_-p_--first-parent_master
>>>
>>> diff --git a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>>> index 40e222c94520..86fb11cecc61 100755
>>> --- a/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t4013-diff-various.sh
>>> @@ -298,6 +298,7 @@ log --root -c --patch-with-stat --summary master
>>>  # improved by Timo's patch
>>>  log --root --cc --patch-with-stat --summary master
>>>  log --no-diff-merges -p --first-parent master
>>> +log --diff-merges=off -p --first-parent master
>>
>> I think we want to also test it in a different order, e.g.
>>
>>     log --first-parent --diff-merges=off -p master
>
> Dunno, why original Jeff series didn't need 
>
>      log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p master
>
> then?

Who said it didn't need it?

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

>> Dunno, why original Jeff series didn't need 
>>
>>      log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p master
>>
>> then?
>
> Who said it didn't need it?

To elaborate a bit more, we are all humans, and even reviewers
should be given the second chance to suggest improvements to things
that can use them, which s/he previously missed.  If we keep saying
"you say this is wrong, but the other guy did the same wrong thing
last week", we can never make the world better.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>> Dunno, why original Jeff series didn't need 
>>>
>>>      log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p master
>>>
>>> then?
>>
>> Who said it didn't need it?
>
> To elaborate a bit more, we are all humans, and even reviewers
> should be given the second chance to suggest improvements to things
> that can use them, which s/he previously missed.  If we keep saying
> "you say this is wrong, but the other guy did the same wrong thing
> last week", we can never make the world better.

I asked because I thought you see some essential difference between two
tests, as you didn't suggest to add similar permutation test to the
original. I think this reply resolves my doubt.

I still think this additional test not needed unless we are going to
test all the permutations, and there are already 6 of them even for this
simple test, so we'd need to add 10 more tests to the 2 originals. If
somebody is willing to implement machinery to test all the option
permutations automatically... But that's out of scope of these patches.

To be honest, if we don't test all the permutations anyway, I'd rather
test most "human" variant only, that to me is:

  log --first-parent -p --no-diff-merges master

because --first-parent tells how to travel in history, and the rest
tells how to represent results, starting from generic "show me diffs"
and followed by "oh, but don't bother me with merge diffs, please".

And now we are back to my original suggestion to invert the order of
parameters in these tests, but approached from another direction ;)

Overall, I can obviously add such a test to the series if you insist,
but to me it still looks pointless. What doesn't look pointless is
replacing the original with the version you suggested, for the reasons
that I've already explained in preliminary discussions of these patches.

Finally, if you still insist on additional test(s), please also tell if
I should add similar permutation to the original --no-diff-merges test.

Thanks,
-- Sergey

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> I asked because I thought you see some essential difference between two
> tests, as you didn't suggest to add similar permutation test to the
> original. I think this reply resolves my doubt.

Yeah, I didn't explain this very well.

The thing is that the way "--first-parent" interacts with other
options that countermand "--diff-merges" (i.e. "--no-diff-merges"
and "--diff-merges=off") needs to be highlighted with extra clarity,
simply because "--first-parent" is different from a simple
"combination" of "follow the first parent commit chain while
traversing" and "--diff-merges" [*1*]

It merely "implies" (or "defaults", which is the usual word we use)
"--diff-merges", so anything the user says explicitly on the command
line countermands it, i.e.

    git log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p

does not trigger "--diff-merges" because the user explicitly says
that diffs for patches are unwanted after saying "--first-parent"
(i.e. without "--no-diff-merges" later, we would have done the
"diff-merges" implied by "--first-parent").

And

    git log --no-diff-merges --first-parent -p

does not trigger "--diff-merges" because the user explicitly said
that diffs for patches are unwanted by the time "--first-parent" is
seen (i.e. without "--no-diff-merges" upfront, "--first-parent"
would have weighed in to enable "--diff-merges" behavior, but
because the user already said "no", it wouldn't).

This is quite different from options that are orthogonal to each
other.  We do not need permutations of "log --root --cc" vs "log
--cc --root" tested.  We know from the code that they cannot
possibly interact with each other.  We could still test the
permutations, and it may give us more "complete" coverage, but it
may be of very low value.

As to permutations of additive options, we do want to make sure they
are truly additive (as opposed to being the "last one wins") and as
a side effect of ensuring the additive nature, we would end up
testing the effect of the order of options given, e.g. "git commit
-m paragraph1 -m paragraph2".

As to permutations of options that directly overrides or opposes
each other, we may want to ensure e.g. that "git log -p -U2 -U4"
uses four context lines and "git log -p -U4 -U2" uses two or that
"git format-patch --attach --no-attach" does not use attachment and
"git format-patch --no-attach --attach" does (i.e. "last one wins").

But again, especially for commands that use parse-options API
correctly to implement their command line options, it is hard to get
these two cases wrong (e.g. you need to deliberately write a
callback to make "log -p -U2 -U4" additive to use six context
lines), so it may be of lower value to throughly test permutations.
It would not be as low as testing permutations of unrelated options,
though.


[Footnote]

*1* It makes it worse that the "-m" option itself changes behavior
(whether it is given explicitly or implied) when used together with
"--first-parent".  Unlike "git log -m -p" without "--first-parent",
you cannot see the difference the mainline brought in to the side
branch when the "--first-parent" option is in use.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I asked because I thought you see some essential difference between two
>> tests, as you didn't suggest to add similar permutation test to the
>> original. I think this reply resolves my doubt.
>
> Yeah, I didn't explain this very well.
>

> The thing is that the way "--first-parent" interacts with other
> options that countermand "--diff-merges" (i.e. "--no-diff-merges"
> and "--diff-merges=off") needs to be highlighted with extra clarity,
> simply because "--first-parent" is different from a simple
> "combination" of "follow the first parent commit chain while
> traversing" and "--diff-merges" [*1*]

[...]

Thanks a lot for thorough explanations, Junio! I appreciate it and will
re-read them more carefully, in the morning.

For now, can we leave these patches as-is and then add additional tests
on top, please? I'm afraid that adding them now will force me to rewrite
current descriptions, as the result won't be minimal anymore, and I
feel uneasy about writing commit messages for these permuted tests
anyway.

Thanks,
-- Sergey

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I asked because I thought you see some essential difference between two
>> tests, as you didn't suggest to add similar permutation test to the
>> original. I think this reply resolves my doubt.
>
> Yeah, I didn't explain this very well.

I think you actually did in a previous thread where I've suggested to
change the order in the existing test to relax it slightly, but more
explanations never hurt.

>
> The thing is that the way "--first-parent" interacts with other
> options that countermand "--diff-merges" (i.e. "--no-diff-merges"
> and "--diff-merges=off") needs to be highlighted with extra clarity,
> simply because "--first-parent" is different from a simple
> "combination" of "follow the first parent commit chain while
> traversing" and "--diff-merges" [*1*]
>
> [ *1* It makes it worse that the "-m" option itself changes behavior
> (whether it is given explicitly or implied) when used together with
> "--first-parent".  Unlike "git log -m -p" without "--first-parent",
> you cannot see the difference the mainline brought in to the side
> branch when the "--first-parent" option is in use. ]

The more you explain it, the more I'm reinforced in my view that the
whole thing is unnecessary complicated, and that we'd better fix it than
try to cast it in stone.

> It merely "implies" (or "defaults", which is the usual word we use)
> "--diff-merges", so anything the user says explicitly on the command
> line countermands it, i.e.

This sounds exactly as if "implied" option were put at the beginning of
the options list, no?

By the way, could you please give an example in documentation where
"defaults" is used to mean "implies", or is it informal and just for
communication of intentions? I failed to find it myself, see below.

>
>     git log --first-parent --no-diff-merges -p
>
> does not trigger "--diff-merges" because the user explicitly says
> that diffs for patches are unwanted after saying "--first-parent"
> (i.e. without "--no-diff-merges" later, we would have done the
> "diff-merges" implied by "--first-parent").
>
> And
>
>     git log --no-diff-merges --first-parent -p
>
> does not trigger "--diff-merges"

So, do these both effectively resolve to:

      git log -m --no-diff-merges --first-parent --patch 

where first -m is the one implied by --first-parent, and the rest are
real options relieved from their side-effects, so that reals are
mutually independent and thus immune to specific relative positions?

> because the user explicitly said that diffs for patches are unwanted
> by the time "--first-parent" is seen (i.e. without "--no-diff-merges"
> upfront, "--first-parent" would have weighed in to enable
> "--diff-merges" behavior, but because the user already said "no", it
> wouldn't).

This is too complicated for my taste. I believe useful outcome could be
achieved without such inter-dependencies, only by using options that
/actually/ imply other option(s) by simple substitution, instead of
"defaulting", whatever it actually means, that would allow to
technically describe options without resorting to guessing user
intentions, and without need to explain behavior by outcome of a set of
examples.

Those particular options aside, there is yet another existing kind of
option that we didn't take into account yet:

      --patch-with-raw
           Synonym for -p --raw.

Synonym! Now, "synonym" means something very definite: that I can safely
substitute one for another with no change of semantics, right? So, here
it is, the "implies" that I mean -- true substitution, and also with no
other side-effects! Synonym, perfect! For myself I call such option a
"convenience option", an option that does nothing else but brings in
(implies) specific set of other options. OK, let's remember we already
have that.

[The only problem with it is that even longest form "--patch --raw" is
shorter than the option itself, so there doesn't seem to be a point of
having this synonym. Looks like historical option converted to
"convenience option" some time ago.]

Digging further, in an attempt to actually find where "defaults" term is
used, I stomped over acutal use of "imply", rather than "default", and
then to yet another kind of option, "shorthand"! What a nice name for
what I called "convenience option" above, I thought! Let's check:

--oneline::
	This is a shorthand for "--pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit"
	used together.

Nice, "shorthand" sounds exactly like "shorter synonym", so it must be
true substitution!

But then, we have this:

--no-abbrev-commit::
	Show the full 40-byte hexadecimal commit object name. This negates
	`--abbrev-commit` and those options which imply it such as
	"--oneline". It also overrides the `log.abbrevCommit` variable.

So, --oneline "implies", according to this piece of git documentation,
--abbrev-commit, and simultaneously --oneline is "shorthand"=="synonym",
that to me means it substitutes --abbrev-commit.

The problem is that, as direct consequence of the above, "implies" must
mean simple substitution, that contradicts the definition of "implies"
being something called "defaults" that you gave at the beginning of your
explanations.

So, finally, I'm entirely lost in all this, again. There doesn't seem to
be strict definition that could be relied upon, and that is not a good
sign.

[Unrelated, but mention not to forget. According to description above,
when --oneline implies --abbrev-commit, the --no-abbrev-commit negates
entire --oneline rather than implied --abbrev-commit! Is this a defect
of the description, or an intended behavior, I wonder?]

>
> This is quite different from options that are orthogonal to each
> other.  We do not need permutations of "log --root --cc" vs "log
> --cc --root" tested.  We know from the code that they cannot
> possibly interact with each other.  We could still test the
> permutations, and it may give us more "complete" coverage, but it
> may be of very low value.

These I like very much!

Ideally, all the different options would be orthogonal to each other,
making things much simpler to grasp, test, and describe, overall. I
believe this should be one of the explicit rules or guidelines for
design for new options, as well as for fixing old options whenever it's
possible without breaking things.

> As to permutations of additive options, we do want to make sure they
> are truly additive (as opposed to being the "last one wins") and as
> a side effect of ensuring the additive nature, we would end up
> testing the effect of the order of options given, e.g. "git commit
> -m paragraph1 -m paragraph2".

These are to be rare exceptions, I think, with explicit tests indeed.

> As to permutations of options that directly overrides or opposes
> each other, we may want to ensure e.g. that "git log -p -U2 -U4"
> uses four context lines and "git log -p -U4 -U2" uses two or that
> "git format-patch --attach --no-attach" does not use attachment and
> "git format-patch --no-attach --attach" does (i.e. "last one wins").

Yeah, the same option with different values should override itself in
general, except additives that you've mentioned above.

>
> But again, especially for commands that use parse-options API
> correctly to implement their command line options, it is hard to get
> these two cases wrong (e.g. you need to deliberately write a
> callback to make "log -p -U2 -U4" additive to use six context
> lines), so it may be of lower value to throughly test permutations.
> It would not be as low as testing permutations of unrelated options,
> though.

This is very good! The only problem remaining is to avoid creating new
inter-dependencies and to get rid of existing wherever possible.

BTW, the revision.c does not use the parse-options API, right? Is it
possible to change that gradually, or should it be done all at once
instead? I mean, if I implement new option for revision.c, should I
somehow rather use the parse-options API instead of imitating existing
code in revision.c?

Thanks,
-- Sergey

Re: [PATCH 2/3] doc/git-log: describe --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-log.txt | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-log.txt b/Documentation/git-log.txt
> index 9ccba65469d7..f3727c786453 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-log.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-log.txt
> @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
>  	rename or copy detection have been requested).
>  
>  -m::
> ---diff-merges::

Shouldn't this "--diff-merges" be removed from here?  As [1/3]
updated it like so:

-	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "-m") || !strcmp(arg, "--diff-merges")) {
+	} else if (!strcmp(arg, "-m")) {
 		revs->ignore_merges = 0;
+	} else if ((argcount = parse_long_opt("diff-merges", argv, &optarg))) {
+		if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")) {
+			revs->ignore_merges = 1;
+		} else {
+			die(_("unknown value for --diff-merges: %s"), optarg);
+		}
+		return argcount;

"git log --diff-merges" would get either an "option --diff-merges
requires a value" error from diff.c::parse_long_opt(), or an
"unknown value for --diff-merges: <opt>" error from the above code.

Other than that, I think 1&2/3 looks good, and we've covered the
tests with 3/3 already, so we are in a reasonably good shape.

Thanks.


>  	This flag makes the merge commits show the full diff like
>  	regular commits; for each merge parent, a separate log entry
>  	and diff is generated. An exception is that only diff against
> @@ -153,6 +152,11 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
>  	in that case, the output represents the changes the merge
>  	brought _into_ the then-current branch.
>  
> +--diff-merges=off::
> +--no-diff-merges::
> +	Disable output of diffs for merge commits (default). Useful to
> +	override `-m`, `-c`, or `--cc`.
> +
>  :git-log: 1
>  include::diff-options.txt[]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] doc/git-log: describe --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/git-log.txt | 6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-log.txt b/Documentation/git-log.txt
>> index 9ccba65469d7..f3727c786453 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-log.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-log.txt
>> @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
>>  	rename or copy detection have been requested).
>>  
>>  -m::
>> ---diff-merges::
>
> Shouldn't this "--diff-merges" be removed from here?

Sorry, my eyes.  Yes, you are removing it from here.

All is well, then.

Re: [PATCH 2/3] doc/git-log: describe --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/git-log.txt | 6 +++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-log.txt b/Documentation/git-log.txt
>>> index 9ccba65469d7..f3727c786453 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-log.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-log.txt
>>> @@ -145,7 +145,6 @@ combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`).
>>>  	rename or copy detection have been requested).
>>>  
>>>  -m::
>>> ---diff-merges::
>>
>> Shouldn't this "--diff-merges" be removed from here?
>
> Sorry, my eyes.  Yes, you are removing it from here.

Don't mention it, -- these "---" caught me as well when I first looked
at the diff!

Thanks,
-- Sergey

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Junio C Hamano]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> So, do these both effectively resolve to:
>
>       git log -m --no-diff-merges --first-parent --patch 
>
> where first -m is the one implied by --first-parent, ...

Eh, why does --first-parent even affect the choice of -m/no-m when
--no-diff-merges is explicitly given?

> This is too complicated for my taste.

No one is forcing you to rely on the implication by --first-parent.
You can always give an explicit --[no-]diff-merges when you use the
"--first-parent" option.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] t/t4013: add test for --diff-merges=off

[Sergey Organov]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So, do these both effectively resolve to:
>>
>>       git log -m --no-diff-merges --first-parent --patch 
>>
>> where first -m is the one implied by --first-parent, ...
>
> Eh, why does --first-parent even affect the choice of -m/no-m when
> --no-diff-merges is explicitly given?

Well, let's try your question on 3 abstract options:

"Why does --X even affects the choice of --Y/no-Y when --Z is explicitly
given?"

And what is the assumed answer?

"--X should only affect the choice of --Y/no-Y when no --Z is explicitly
given"

right? Or, in other terms:

"--X implies --Y unless --Z is explicitly given (as opposed to implied?)"

Do you see the problem here? I do see this as a problem. Simple "--X
implies --Y" should be sufficient to achieve any of required behaviors.
No need for such complications.

I just try to figure if some more or less strict model is hidden behind
all this, and it seems there is none.

Thanks,
-- Sergey