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=-3.7 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 B783A1F55B for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726317AbgFLOSy (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:18:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:32195 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726255AbgFLOSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:18:53 -0400 Received: from host-89-243-191-101.as13285.net ([89.243.191.101] helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1jjkWC-000Cdo-72; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:18:52 +0100 Subject: Re: git log --name-only improvement: show old file name in rename To: Junio C Hamano , Ed Avis Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" References: From: Philip Oakley Message-ID: <25ca66fb-82bc-7278-90e9-5e1999593068@iee.email> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:18:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org @Ed On 12/06/2020 00:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ed Avis writes: > >> The git-log manual page says >> >>        --name-only >>            Show only names of changed files. >> >> But when a file has been renamed, only the new name is printed, not the >> old.  I think it would be more useful and more correct to print both >> names. Was this a concern that the manual did not clarify which name (old or new) was being reported? Philip > It is just you who thinks it would be more useful. > > Scripts written by people over the last 10 years that expect to see > new name would certainly hate to see two names start appearing > there. > > Perhaps you can use --summary at the same time?