Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> The only question regarding it I then have for now is what are >> preferences for names selection inside single option? Abbreviated yet >> somewhat sensible, or verbose? I mean: >> >> --diff-merges=first vs --diff-merges=first-parent >> >> --diff-merges=comb vs --diff-merges=combined >> >> etc. What's better? > > If we were to shoot for easy-to-type, we could go for ultra-short > abbreviations like 'no', 'c', 'cc', 'each' (the last one is the > traditional "-m" when used without "--first-parent"; diff with each > parent) and later add 'fp', but in a sense we are already lost the > easy-to-type goal by "--diff-merges" being sufficiently long. Do I get it right that there are no common guidelines and every case is to be considered separately? Anyway: $ git log -d fatal: unrecognized argument: -d $ git show -d fatal: unrecognized argument: -d so it seems we still have -d to (ab)use for, say "-d 1" or "-d m", if we decide to. > > I personally wouldn't choose "first" or "first-parent", but just use > "1", so that we could support "2" when viewing a merge that was done > in the wrong direction with "git show", though. I fail to see how using "first-parent" would deny using a number either later or right now, though based on your own rating of octopus merges with which I whole-heartedly agree, the only thing we'd ever need seems to be "second-parent", or 2. > IOW, even though I said that "use these parents but not those" (i.e. > set of parents) smells overkill, at least to me, I think specifying a > single parent that is not necessarily the first one would be a > reasonable thing to do. The second parent, I'd agree. Others? Well, that's more a completeness theoretical issue to me rather than practical one. More relevant to plumbing than to porcelain thereof. And, as additional safety, we still have that "all|every|each|split" -m that will show needed diff among others. > > So, if I were to vote, it would be > > "--diff-merges=" ( first-parent | 1 | > combined | c | > dense-combined | cc | > each-parent | m ) > "--no-diff-merges" > > leaving some room to add '2' and <any posInt> later. Thanks for voting! I believe we still have the room for digits even if we use first-parent, and then won't "--first-parent implies --diff-merges=first-parent" sound really cool? Overall, I incline to support short (traditional and numbered) variants along with new longer spellings at the same time, similar to short and long options. Thanks, -- Sergey
