On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:01:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > -m::
> > +--no-ignore-merges::
>
> This invites a natural "does --ignore-merges exist, and if so what
> does it do?" Why not to have "--[no-]ignore-merges" as a separate
> entry immediately after the existing "-m" instead?
I was hoping it would all be implied and I could dodge those questions.
But it seems not. :)
After thinking on it more, I flipped it to:
-m::
--diff-merges::
[existing text...]
and then I don't think we need to have another block for
--no-diff-merges.
I'll likewise add a statement that "-m" is implied by "--first-parent"
and can be counteracted with the "--no" form, which I think should spell
out all the implications of the series.
-Peff
