Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:34 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [...] >> >> ++ >> >> +--diff-merges=(off|none)::: >> >> +--no-diff-merges::: >> >> + (default) Disable output of diffs for merge commits. Useful to >> >> + override implied value. >> >> ++ >> >> +--diff-merges=first-parent::: >> >> + This option makes merge commits show the full diff with >> >> + respect to the first parent only, exactly like regular >> >> + commits. >> > >> > Not sure that "exactly like regular commits" is helpful here; I'd >> > personally rather cut those four words out. I'm worried it'll be >> > taken not as an implementation explanation, but as a "this treats >> > merge commits in the natural way that regular commits are" which users >> > may mistakenly translate to "it shows what changes the user manually >> > made as part of the commit" which is not at all the correct mapping. >> >> Dunno. Don't have strict preference here. Git has no idea how the >> changes in a commit have been made in the first place. Changes are just >> changes. > > If you don't have a preference, can we drop those four words? ;-) Yeah, sure, dropped. > >> To my excuse, I took this from git:5fbb4bc191 that has: >> >> +Note that unless one of `-c`, `--cc`, or `-m` is given, merge commits >> +will never show a diff, even if a diff format like `--patch` is >> +selected, nor will they match search options like `-S`. The exception is >> +when `--first-parent` is in use, in which merges are treated like normal >> +single-parent commits (this can be overridden by providing a >> +combined-diff option or with `--no-diff-merges`). > > Yeah, I can see where you're coming from, though the context change > feels like just enough different that the four words you added bother > me a bit more. However, this existing wording does bother me now that > you highlight it. Even though it's not something introduced by your > patch, I'd really like to drop "normal" here; I think it is prone to > cause confusion to users and as far as I can tell provides no useful > meaning for the sentence. (There are multiple types of single-parent > commits? What is an "unnormal" one? How do I tell which kind I want? > etc...). I see your point, but I won't change it in these series. I think that it'd be better if you change this yourself, independently. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
