Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:03 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> > If we enable "some kind of diff" for "-m", I actually think that by >> > default "git log -m" should be turned into "log --cc". As you told >> > Alex in your response, "log -m -p" is a quite unpleasant format to >> > read---it is there only because it was the only thing we had before >> > we invented "-c/--cc". >> >> Please, no! --cc has unfortunate feature of outputting exactly nothing >> for a lot of merge commits, causing even more confusion than historical >> "-m -p" format. >> >> The best default for -m output is --diff-merges=first-parent. Everybody >> is familiar with it, and it's useful. >> >> > But that might be outside the scope of this series. I dunno, but if >> > there is no other constraints (like backward compatibility issues), >> > I have a moderately strong preference to use "--cc" over "-m -p" >> > from the get go for unconfigured people, rather than forcing >> > everybody to configure >> >> I rather have strong preference for --diff-merges=first-parent. --cc is >> only suitable for Git experts, and they know how to get what they want >> anyway. Yep, by using --cc. Why spare yet another short option for that? >> >> Overall, let's rather make -m give diff to the first parent by default. >> Simple. Useful. Not confusing. > > Honestly --diff-merges=separate is fine. Two weeks ago, when I started > this discussion, I was trying to use `git log -m` and `git show -m` to > find which merge commit introduced a particular change. Extremely > verbose diff output would have been great for that, the confusing part > was just that `git show -m` produced diff output and `git log -m` did > not. This is not a case in favor of "separate" over "first-parent" as the default for "-m", right? "Which merge commit introduced particular change" is exactly what --diff-merges=1 achieves, so "--diff-merges=separate" was not in fact needed, as I see it. Moreover, it could have produced wrong positives. Looks like --diff-merges=1 is a better fit. > Maybe what we really want is a new short option like `git log -m1` > which would both enable diff output and set --diff-merges=1. Hopefully this will be simply "-m" soon. "-m1" is no-go as optional arguments to short options is a bad idea. It could have been "--m1", but I believe that's not needed. > > But again, I don't have a strong opinion on which particular diff > output is "the best", so I'm happy to leave that decision to the > experts. There is no "the best", and at least "first-parent" and "dense-combined" are to survive, and "dense-combined" already has its "--cc" rather short variant, so it's logical to give -m the other one, especially as it already has this meaning when --first-parent is provided as well. Also, I'm not sure if -c is being in use, and if it isn't, then it could be changed to produce dense-combined format, especially as one still have --diff-merges=condensed nowadays anyway, so that -m and -c will finally give 2 most useful formats. Overall, I still find a lot of sense in giving "-m" exactly first-parent default meaning. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov P.S. If generic options machinery were in use, it could have been possible to say: git log -pm reducing the issue to consistency only. I wonder if anybody have plans to convert setup_revisions() to parse_options() utility?
