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-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, 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 4C5CE1F5AE for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 14:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231527AbhEDOTz (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 10:19:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55732 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231393AbhEDOTy (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 10:19:54 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C935EC061574 for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id s25so11396415lji.0 for ; Tue, 04 May 2021 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=006jv1iPTdf/4kj3hNCkrPDOyXzDoa3aWVbuTywcbac=; b=LXvqX85HmnpEPJv8ev158f3UVV8VRYsX/uoeYJDjELc5F4Gq8sFPGg7vCT9AJX2nQC N7boD44o+q9dDj8CzndMx3v/Eswomf1d0tbuvoUVKNsyNfa7+JFpZCKb4sAs5DskIt1l TKXKVrPNZvAqSMyXvimFQN627fnpl92yjWyE+cI2Jp7rpElrNrK8kfjhGudskairwk+/ lwKpHcC4aTFksHojjpjVofYme68R0P9sK+Wm/KkKbDw9q3KcWdtHCwH5iOWCxwk6Gai7 FOTdsFO1GIi1ckAP5kYqrlhR+16/FrPqkOJTU1nV1jkEPPrmV7SrMxHXvucMptDJ2n8L +9Aw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=006jv1iPTdf/4kj3hNCkrPDOyXzDoa3aWVbuTywcbac=; b=R3x2oUqJCdPUQGIczLcXkWtUbKi++gH8kRYM/vbCb3m60VnngVk9ZfjYcq8K7ZOWFt ICSntTP0IvJ8TVW/8lG1rOVl1Gpsfxxc/lVipeqr0jQNWtE9ICM8NNjBDXRR3PRoYHgs rNrFim7ntQsl4YUxI3Ww20lHdaDWquhFeikRxrNosxdIaqI18hEeVfY6zF95Yh/wK52L JXyB73sIZrB8fPI72MUwpBeXyajyw8MTb1C4c7IUFDHVmqidQKyKPgQvulA66AOsKpqV k2nDhCIi4B2FPcxoWJzaor4yIuG/ypbbaG59duNG5jwzqTih8k3fyDRj4R71aFbuP+7G 2JQw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Ka14J62mm+aSirL4PVybiIHj/LjxkRfWWMptfg4/eiTcb88B5 j/lVFgNmR1GFIElE8XITlwIIDgiI268= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7a1ZwPGUzR/gmSXqjC60Ci971I6mE9NtHw5G/Lg64qnDWD+uZlLh9LPS5cxe+9Db0ovDMdw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a795:: with SMTP id c21mr18460760ljf.353.1620137938037; Tue, 04 May 2021 07:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osv.localdomain ([89.175.180.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f36sm276285lfv.248.2021.05.04.07.18.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 May 2021 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Sergey Organov To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Alex Henrie , Git mailing list Subject: Re: Why doesn't `git log -m` imply `-p`? References: <87im45clkp.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87v9837tzm.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87czu7u32v.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87eeemhnj4.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 17:18:56 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 04 May 2021 21:38:52 +0900") Message-ID: <87r1imbmzz.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> That said, what do we decide about -m to finally join -c/--cc party and >> start to imply -p? Last time we've discussed it, we decided that -m has >> been simply overlooked when -c/--cc started to imply -p. Should we >> finally fix this? > > I thought I already said this, but in case I didn't, I think > "--diff-merges=separate" should imply "some kind of diff", and not > necessarily "-p". Is this a more polite way to say "no"? If not, how is it relevant for -m, now being a synonym for --diff-merges=on? As for particular idea, I'll repeat myself as well and say that I'm still against implying anything by any off --diff-merges, and even more against implying something that affects non-merge commits. --diff-merges are not convenience options that need to be short yet give specific functionality, so there is no place for additional implications. That said, I think that something like your idea could be fine if we introduce another convenience option, say, -d, that will imply both --diff-merges=separate and "some kind of diff" (whatever the latter actually means, I'm not sure yet.) But then again, why don't just reuse -m that, as we've decided before, is not that useful in its current state anyway? I must admit that I don't entirely understand your idea above yet. Maybe you could provide a draft of manual entry for proposed behavior of --diff-merges=separate, for better understanding? For convenience, right now it reads: --diff-merges=separate This makes merge commits show the full diff with respect to each of the parents. Separate log entry and diff is generated for each parent. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov