Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I have "split" and "separate" in mind, the latter likely shortened to "sep". Overall: --diff-merges=(off,none|comb|dense,dense-comb,comb-dense|sep,split) -- Sergey
