Re: [PATCH 1/3] doc: reword -B option of diff into something sensible

["Jean-Noël Avila" <jn.avila@free.fr>]

On 12/12/2019 at 21:46, Jean-Noël Avila wrote:
> The sentence seemed to miss a verb.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@free.fr>
> ---
>  Documentation/diff-options.txt | 16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/diff-options.txt b/Documentation/diff-options.txt
> index 09faee3b44..350d0a2fb0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/diff-options.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/diff-options.txt
> @@ -452,14 +452,14 @@ endif::git-format-patch[]
>  	create. This serves two purposes:
>  +
>  It affects the way a change that amounts to a total rewrite of a file
> -not as a series of deletion and insertion mixed together with a very
> -few lines that happen to match textually as the context, but as a
> -single deletion of everything old followed by a single insertion of
> -everything new, and the number `m` controls this aspect of the -B
> -option (defaults to 60%). `-B/70%` specifies that less than 30% of the
> -original should remain in the result for Git to consider it a total
> -rewrite (i.e. otherwise the resulting patch will be a series of
> -deletion and insertion mixed together with context lines).
> +does not appear as a series of deletion and insertion mixed together
> +with a very few lines that happen to match textually as the context,
> +but as a single deletion of everything old followed by a single
> +insertion of everything new, and the number `m` controls this aspect
> +of the -B option (defaults to 60%). `-B/70%` specifies that less than
> +30% of the original should remain in the result for Git to consider it
> +a total rewrite (i.e. otherwise the resulting patch will be a series
> +of deletion and insertion mixed together with context lines).
>  +
>  When used with -M, a totally-rewritten file is also considered as the
>  source of a rename (usually -M only considers a file that disappeared
> 

Hello,

It seems this patch was never merged, whereas the two following ones are
indeed merged. Was it refused because a complete rewrite was expected?