Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:23 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:48 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 1:43 PM Sergey Organov
>> >> > <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These patch series implement new set of options governing the
>> >> >> diff output
>> >> >> of merge commits, all under the umbrella of the single
>> >> >> --diff-merges=<mode>
>> >> >> option. Most of the new options being synonyms for -m/-c/--cc options,
>> >> >> there is also additional functionality provided, allowing to get
>> >> >> the format
>> >> >> of "-p --first-parent" without change in history traversal that
>> >> >> --first-parent option causes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The net result of these series are the following new options:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --diff-merges= | old equivalent
>> >> >> -----------------+----------------
>> >> >> first-parent | --first-parent (only format implications)
>> >> >> separate | -m
>> >> >> combined | -c
>> >> >> dense-combined | --cc
>> >> >
>> >> > Interesting. I have some local patches implementing another choice,
>> >> > with the new flag --remerge-diff. This flag will cause `git show` or
>> >> > `git log` to automatically remerge the two parents in a 2-parent merge
>> >> > commit, and then diff the merge commit against that automatic merge,
>> >> > showing the result. Thus, the diff for a merge commit is likely to be
>> >> > empty if the merge was clean, and is likely to show the removal of
>> >> > conflict markers if the merge was not clean.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm curious how it'd interact with this new option. Would it also get
>> >> > a name, e.g. --diff-merges=remerge-diff? Feels like a mouthful, but I
>> >> > can't come up with anything better.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe, --diff-merges=remerge?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, I'm curious how it'd interact with another option I added, named
>> >> > --remerge-diff-only. This latter option modifies revision traversal
>> >> > in that it skips octopus merges, root commits, and single parent
>> >> > commits IF no cherry-pick or revert information can be found. If it
>> >> > finds a 2-parent merge commit, it behaves like --remerge-diff. If it
>> >> > finds a 1-parent commit with cherry-pick or revert information, it'll
>> >> > do an in memory repeat of that cherry-pick (or revert) and then diff
>> >> > the actual commit against what the automatic cherry-pick would
>> >> > perform. Again, that likely means an empty diff if the automatic
>> >> > cherry-pick was clean, and showing any changes made by the user to
>> >> > complete the original cherry-pick (such as deleting conflict markers
>> >> > and picking which chunks from which side to keep) if the automatic
>> >> > cherry-pick was not clean. (I suspect --remerge-diff-only is much
>> >> > more likely to be used with `git show` than with `git log`.) Anyway,
>> >> > your changes seem to suggest that anything relating to how diffs for
>> >> > merges are handled should be documented in the same section, but
>> >> > --remerge-diff-only doesn't fit. And it'd seem odd to have
>> >> > --remerge-diff and --remerge-diff-only not show up in adjacently but
>> >> > be split into separate sections. Any ideas?
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like commits limiting option to me. I think it could be named by
>> >> its limiting behavior only, say, --remerges. Then it will imply
>> >> --diff-merges=remerge, that'd allow user to re-define diff format if she
>> >> needs to.
>> >
>> > It is commit limiting, but the focus is more on the behavioral change
>> > in how diffs are shown:
>> > * for 2-parent merges
>> > * for single-parent commits with cherry-pick or revert information
>> > and acknowledging that since it has _altered_ the normal way of
>> > showing diffs for a number of single-parent commits, that it'd be
>> > confusing to show normal diffs of unaffected commits (how would you be
>> > able to tell what type of diff you're looking at if both appear in the
>> > log?). Thus, it does commit limiting to only select commits which
>> > will make use of the new diff type.
>>
>> That's how you currently look at it.
>>
>> For me it looks like pure commit limiting with these criteria might be
>> useful by itself, and with my suggestion one could then achieve it
>> using, say:
>>
>> --remerge-diff-only --diff-merges=off
>
> I see what you're saying, and I think there's some value in it. But I
> think there's something still missing. For example, you suggest
> getting the commit limiting I mention with
>
> --remerge-diff-only --diff-merges=off
>
> But --diff-merges is only supposed to control _merge_ commits, which I
> flagged as the big impedance mismatch for my new option. Why would it
> turn off diffs for non-merge commits like cherry-picks and rebases?
>
>> >
>> > (I suspect it will be more common for folks to use the
>> > --remerge-diff-only option, or whatever we end up calling it, with
>> > `git show` where the commit limiting doesn't matter -- but I have used
>> > it with log to go looking for "evil" reverts/cherry-picks that might
>> > have occurred in history.)
>>
>> What you describe is complex enough to doubt it could be entirely
>> described by option name, so shorter --evils might be better choice
>> in this case.
>>
>> Overall, if you add --diff-merges=remerge as a new diff format, and then
>> --evils that implies the former, then it seems like all possible
>> use-cases will be covered, and you have short option name for the most
>> useful case.
>
> Since you want things to have orthogonal subcomponents that can be
> built up, let's assume we did make --remerge-diff-only be solely about
> commit limiting. In that case, --evils could be gotten by specifying
> a combination of flags, and --evils would just be a shorthand. What
> are the flags that you would need to specify, though? In particular,
> you've only named two options above and they don't cover the necessary
> behavior; a third is needed:
>
> --remerge-diff-only --diff-merges=remerge
> --${DIFF_OPTION_NAME_FOR_CHERRY_PICKS_AND_REVERTS}=remerge
>
> The first two aren't enough because --diff_merges only changes how
> diffs for _merge_ commits are shown, and we need a flag for changing
> how the single-parent cherry-pick and reverts are shown.
Yeah, I see your point. I didn't get it from the beginning that you want
yet another representation format for regular commits as well. However,
as far as I can tell, if --evils flag is active, you do consider
cherry-picks and reverts as kind of merges, that makes sense as they
actually /are/ expected to be results of specific /merge operation/,
even though they are not /merge commits/, so semantically they do have
second parent reference (to the original commit), even if a virtual one.
To further illustrate my point, reverts and cherry-picks could have been
implemented, for example, as merge commits with, say, 3-rd parent
pointing back to the original commit (not 2-nd parent, both to
differentiate from regular merges and to support cherry-picking of merge
commits.)
As a side-note, people rarely differentiate between
"merge-the-operation" and "merge-the-result" anyway, even when it leads
to confusion.
Overall, if we take the above into account, it seems to be fine if
--diff-merges does affect the representation or such "quasi-merge"
commits, for the purposes of --evils option.
-- Sergey Organov
