Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> That said, what do we decide about -m to finally join -c/--cc party and
>> start to imply -p? Last time we've discussed it, we decided that -m has
>> been simply overlooked when -c/--cc started to imply -p. Should we
>> finally fix this?
>
> I thought I already said this, but in case I didn't, I think
> "--diff-merges=separate" should imply "some kind of diff", and not
> necessarily "-p".
Is this a more polite way to say "no"? If not, how is it relevant for
-m, now being a synonym for --diff-merges=on?
As for particular idea, I'll repeat myself as well and say that I'm
still against implying anything by any off --diff-merges, and even more
against implying something that affects non-merge commits. --diff-merges
are not convenience options that need to be short yet give specific
functionality, so there is no place for additional implications.
That said, I think that something like your idea could be fine if we
introduce another convenience option, say, -d, that will imply both
--diff-merges=separate and "some kind of diff" (whatever the latter
actually means, I'm not sure yet.) But then again, why don't just reuse
-m that, as we've decided before, is not that useful in its current
state anyway?
I must admit that I don't entirely understand your idea above yet. Maybe
you could provide a draft of manual entry for proposed behavior of
--diff-merges=separate, for better understanding? For convenience, right
now it reads:
--diff-merges=separate
This makes merge commits show the full diff with respect to
each of the parents. Separate log entry and diff is generated
for each parent.
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
