Re: [PATCH 0/5] diff-merges: more features

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The last time '-m' issue appeared on the list, it all started here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAMMLpeR-W35Qq6a343ifrxJ=mwBc_VcXZtVrBYDpJTySNBroFw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> In particular, the final patch and its revert is deeper down this tread:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210520214703.27323-11-sorganov@xxxxxxxxx/#t
>
> and
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/YQyUM2uZdFBX8G0r@xxxxxxxxxx/

Thanks, these provide extremely helpful context :) In particular:

- Junio describes this "do nothing unless -p" is given behavior as an
  accident [1].
- Jonathan Nieder notes that this change accidentally broke scripts
  where "-m" probably wasn't doing anything useful, but we wanted to
  avoid breaking the scripts for backwards compatibility anyway [2].

I got the sense that the closest thing to an intentional use case of
"-m" is for users who thought that "-m" would affect path limiting [3],
although it doesn't actually do that. So what I've reads so far suggests
that "do nothing unless -p" (aka --diff-merges=hide) is not actually
useful, and we should just drop it.

We could keep the warning for "-m" without "-p" (Patch 5), and recommend
"--diff-merges=(on|m)".

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqwnsl93m3.fsf@gitster.g/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/YQtYEftByY8cNMml@xxxxxxxxxx/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/YQyUM2uZdFBX8G0r@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Where do you prefer these references to be put, in the cover letter, in
> the commit message, or in both places?
>
> -- Sergey Organov



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux