On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 12:24:31AM +0100, Étienne Servais wrote: > This feature was added by commit > 076c98372e (log: add "log.follow" configuration variable, 2015-07-07) > but remained undocumented. That commit just touched the code; it was originally added by aebbcf5797 (diff: accept --no-follow option, 2012-09-21). But I think the general intent of your patch is still valid. > Signed-off-by: Étienne Servais <etienne.servais@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > This is my first patch to git \o/ > Sent with thunderbird with help of format-patch'doc (So, it works!). Yeah, everything looks good there (no whitespace damage, etc). > I couldn't figure if I shall merge the --no-follow doc with the follow > as is done for --no-decorate and --decorate just after. I think it would make more sense to just put it with --follow, like: [--no-]follow:: which matches how --use-mailmap is defined, for instance. > @@ -205,7 +208,8 @@ log.follow:: > If `true`, `git log` will act as if the `--follow` option was used when > a single <path> is given. This has the same limitations as `--follow`, > i.e. it cannot be used to follow multiple files and does not work well > - on non-linear history. > + on non-linear history. This setting can be disabled by the `--no-follow` > + option. I'm on the fence on this hunk. There are a number of config options that can be canceled or overridden by command-line options. It's a normal pattern for the "--no" variant to do so. So while it often doesn't hurt to give a pointer in the right direction, I don't know that we'd want to start doing so in every such case. -Peff
