Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> If I were to decide now with hindsight, perhaps I'd make "--cc" and >>> "-m" imply "-p" only for merge commits, and the user can explicitly >>> give "--cc -p" and "-m -p" to ask patches for single-parent commits >>> to be shown as well. >> >> After "now with hindsight", I need to add "and without having to >> worry about backward compatibility issues" here. IOW, the above is >> not my recommendation. It would be the other way around: "--cc" >> implies "-p" for both merges and non-merges, "-m" implies "-p" for >> both merges and non-merges. It is acceptable to add a new option >> "--no-patch-for-non-merge" so that the user can ask to see only the >> combined diff for merges and no patches for individual commits. > > OK, so, do we decide that -c/--cc must continue to imply -p and thus > request diffs for everything? My vote goes to keep the above behaviour as-is for compatibility, and probably match what happens when -m is given instead of -c/--cc, if somebody cares enough about "-c/--cc/-m discrepancy". > That said, -m is useless, period. It'd likely have some merit in > plumbing, but definitely not in porcelain. So I'm inclined to let it > rest in peace indeed, dying. That is fine by me as well. I do not speak for others, though ;-)
