Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Let's fix the interactions of these bits to first make "-s" work as >> intended. > > Is it though? Yes. If the proposed log message says "as intended", the author thinks it is. Throwing a rhetorical question and stopping at that is not useful; you'd need to explain yourself if you think differently. Unless the only effect you want is to be argumentative and annoy others, that is. I've dug the history and as I explained elsewhere in the earlier discussion, I know that the "--no-patch" originally was added as a synonym for "-s" that makes the output from the diff machinery silent---I have a good reason to believe that it is making "-s" and "--no-patch" both work as intended. I would not say that we should *not* move further with a follow up topic, but I think we should consider doing so only after the dust settles from this round.
