Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> + } else if ((argcount = parse_long_opt("diff-merges", argv, &optarg))) { >>> revs->ignore_merges = 0; >>> + if (!strcmp(optarg, "off")) { >>> + revs->ignore_merges = 1; >>> + } else if (!strcmp(optarg, "all")) { >>> + revs->diff = 0; >> >> Should this be revs->ignore_merges = 0? > > It's 4 lines above, as it's in fact common for all the cases but the > first one. I may be mistaken, but I thought Peff was asking about turning revs->diff off. I somehow thought that the equivalence planned for the short term is: (new) (peff's) (master) diff-merges=none == --no-diff-merges == ! -m diff-merges=all == --diff-merges == -m and future extension would add equivalents to --cc and -c, in addition to <parentNum>, which is not something we can do with the current UI and machinery. So, shouldn't the body of that else if clause for "all" be a no-op? i.e. } else if (!strcmp(optarg, "all")) { ; /* nothing */ }