Sergey Organov wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > > >> >> --patch followed by --no-patch is to be a no-op according to the "git > >> >> log" manual page. > >> > > >> > I briefly wondered if it is a bug in the documentation. > >> > ... when "git log -p --raw" shows both patch and raw, I do not > >> > think of a reason why "git log -p --raw --no-patch" should not > >> > behave similarly. > >> > >> So, to tie the loose ends, "log -p --raw --no-patch" and "log -p > >> --stat --no-patch" do behave similarly. Where my reaction was > >> mistaken was that I did not read the manual page myself that clearly > >> said it is the same as "-s" that suppresses diff output (where "diff > >> output" is not limited to "patch"---diffstat is also output of "diff"), > >> and incorrectly thought that "--no-patch" would countermand only > >> "--patch" and nothing else. > > > > If Sergey, you, and me all agreed on what `--no-patch` should do > > (without reading the manpage), isn't that an indication that that is the > > expected behavior? > > > > The fact that the documentation documents some unexpected behavior, > > doesn't mean it isn't a bug. > > > > I would say it's a documented bug. > > Yep, it is. Chances are this will end-up in the "won't fix" category > though, similar to unfortunate '-m'. Probably. > In which case I think it's better to explicitly mark it in the documentation > as such: won't fix. Agreed. -- Felipe Contreras
