On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:49:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I'm just > > raising the issue now because we'll be locked into the semantics of this > > option, which may not be able to express the full set of what's possible > > (so we'd be stuck adding another option later). > > Yeah, but a good thing is that we won't have to worry about this > until much later, as long as we would just be introducing "diff > against no parents" and nothing else (or together with "diff against > all parents", which would make it easier to explain "-m"). Agreed. My only question is whether the possibility of later having those other options might influence how we name the two options we add now. I think it's clear to all of us in this thread how those two easy options should behave, but if the intent is to eventually allow these to be mutually exclusive: - no diff - combined - dense combined - individual diff against each parent but orthogonal to the selection of the parent-set (none, all, or selected ones) then e.g. "all" makes less sense for "individual diff against each parent". I don't have a good succinct name suggestion, though. TBH, I would be happy enough with any of the suggestions in the thread, so I am really just finishing the thought here, and not trying to derail progress. :) -Peff
