Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Yes, we can invent the rule that implied options don't ... > > "invent"? It is nothing new, isn't it? IIRC, Peff's "first-parent > implies 'm' but can be countermanded with --no-diff-merges" defines > "implication" exactly that way. I do not think that is a recent > invention but it is just following the patterns set by other options > that has conditional implications. > > IOW, > > $ git log --no-diff-merges --first-parent -p next > $ git log --first-parent -p --no-diff-merges next > > should both mean the same thing. The user said no patch is wanted > for merge commits with --no-diff-merges and --first-parent does not > affect it. I disagree, but I drop the issue for now for the goal of making sensible progress with --diff-merges. I'll do the patches without this modifications of the tests. Thanks, -- Sergey.
