Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> So, does
>>>
>>> --diff-merges=(off,none|comb|dense,dense-comb,comb-dense|sep,split)
>>>
>>> make sense as covering all the current features?
>>
>> If we are primarily interested in theoretical completeness, it may.
>> If we are interested more in practical usefulness, I am not sure if
>> such a "full flexibility" matrix is a good way to present the
>> feature to the end-users.
>
> I thought it's just a -c, -cc, and -m in better wording. No any
> matrix:
>
> -c = --diff-merges=combined
> -cc = --diff-merges=dense
> -m = --diff-merges=split
>
> Just separate mutually exclusive options assembled into one multi-value
> option, so it's explicit they are mutually exclusive. I don't see any
> matrix here.
Oh, matrix comes from specifying the set of parents in a separate
parameter. If we are not doing that, then you cannot even express
"when showing a merge, compare only with the first parent", no?
And when you add --diff-parents=1 (i.e. diff with first-parent), you
are opening the interface up so that it can express dubious
combinations like --diff-merges=dense-combined --diff-parents=1,3
(i.e. --cc but exclude the second parent as one of the preimages).
You also have a redundant combination, e.g.
--diff-merges=(off,combined,dense-combined,each) --diff-parents=""
would be the same as --diff-merges=off without saying which parents
to compare with.
