Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Wouldn't this be simpler and do the same thing, I wonder? The >> point being that "--pretty --header" and "--header --pretty" >> traditionally did not make --header to override --pretty. > > I thought, why not fix that bug, too? After all, it is counterintuitive > what "--header --pretty" does, and it was easy to fix. I checked with 0.99.9m and both "--pretty --header" and "--header --pretty" gives preference to --pretty. I think your patch changes it to favor whichever comes later. I thought it could be considered a bug to accept --header and --pretty at the same time without complaining, but if you want to forbid it, you could error out. However, that might break existing Porcelains, and that's why I suggested to keep the traditional "--pretty wins over --header" behaviour. If gitk were the only Porcelain we care about that uses --header, it would make more sense to change the rule to "--header trumps --pretty" and "gitk --pretty" would magically start working. Still undecided. As you say it is an easy change, so I'd rather leave the behaviour as before for now. - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html