Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I already agreed long ago that to be on the safe side we shouldn't >> simply change -m nowadays, and addressed that concern by putting -m >> behavior change under configuration option in the current series. So >> what's the reason of rejection? > > Before we start talking in circles again, I think the responses > elsewhere in the thread still accurately capture mine and Junio's > views, e.g.: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqedr28wwb.fsf@gitster.g > https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6lr0v2i0gn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ There were no any response from you to my recent very direct question (that Junio did somewhat address), but what I figured from your and Junio explanation so far looks like: 1. The fact that -m does not imply -p is a mistake. There is no any reasons this exact behavior could be useful. As such, it does not make sense to support this exact behavior in --diff-merges. So the reject of --diff-merges=[no-]hide. 2. This mistake is too dangerous to fix due to subtle compatibility problems, so we can't just fix -m behavior. Thus the reject of my earlier patch "let -m imply -p". 3. Moving behavior change under option is not worth it, as nobody presumably needs this fixed -m behavior anyway (at least among 2 persons that are actually opposing the changes). So the reject of "add diffMerges-m-imply-p configuration option" patch. 4. Staring in the face inconsistency between -m and the rest of short diff-merge options is not significant enough to reconsider any of the above rejects. Did I outline your positions correctly and to the full extent? Anything else I forgot? I want to make sure I got it exactly right, as I'd still like to tweak my proposals, and I'd like to avoid the troubles I got into as much as possible. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
