On Tue, Dec 21 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:29 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 21 2021, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: >> >> > From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > Documentation/diff-options.txt | 8 ++++++++ >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/diff-options.txt b/Documentation/diff-options.txt >> > index c89d530d3d1..b05f1c9f1c9 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/diff-options.txt >> > +++ b/Documentation/diff-options.txt >> > @@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ ifdef::git-log[] >> > each of the parents. Separate log entry and diff is generated >> > for each parent. >> > + >> > +--diff-merges=remerge::: >> > +--diff-merges=r::: >> > +--remerge-diff::: >> > + With this option, two-parent merge commits are remerged to >> > + create a temporary tree object -- potentially containing files >> > + with conflict markers and such. A diff is then shown between >> > + that temporary tree and the actual merge commit. >> > ++ >> > --diff-merges=combined::: >> > --diff-merges=c::: >> > -c::: >> >> This & 5/9 would I think be better squashed into their respective "main" >> patches. > > I presume you mean the "main" patch for this one is 8/9. I was trying > to find a way to break up that large patch, but this is pretty small > so...sure I'll squash it in. > > What are you referring to as the "main" patch for 5/9, though? It > only seems related to 6/9 and 7/9 to me, but I very deliberately split > those patches off and don't want to confuse them with unrelated > changes. I disagree with combining 5/9 with either of those. I just gave it a quick initial skim. I have sometimes found it a bit harder to review your patches due to over-splitting. E.g. (went back and looked) here tmp_objdir_discard_objects() is introduced in 1/9 but used in 8/9. "path_messages" is then introduced in 5/9 and used in 8/9, no? Anyway, just a bit of feedback. FWIW not just bikeshedding. I do find myself stopping at 1/9, paging to 2/9, searching for the function, not there, checking 3/9 etc. I realize this is a bit of a stones & glass houses comment, but I find it a bit easier to review things when a patch is larger v.s. having it split up in a way where preceding steps don't do anything yet except wait for use by a subsequent patch. 0.02 etc.
