Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I entirely agree with your conclusion: obviously, -s (--silent) and
> > --no-patch are to be different for UI to be even remotely intuitive, and
> > I'd vote for immediate fix of --no-patch semantics even though it's a
> > backward-incompatible change.
> While it is very clear that the intent of the author was to make it
> a synonym for "-s" and not a "feature-wise enable/disable" option,
I disgree, it's very clear the intention was to negate --patch, he
explicitely said so multiple times:
* This follows the usual convention of having a --no-foo option to
negate --foo.
* to cancel the effect of `--patch`.
In particular, the purpose was to make silencing the output of `git diff`
more accessible, the cover letter makes it abundantly clear [1]:
====
> Stefan Beller <stefanbeller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> However I sometimes also get:
>> sb@sb:~/OSS/git$ git show --format="%ad" 0da7a53
>> Fri Jul 12 10:49:34 2013 -0700
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.8.4.txt
>> b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.8.4.txt
>> index 0e50df8..4250e5a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.8.4.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.8.4.txt
>
> "git show" will show the diff by default. For merge commits, it shows
> the --cc diff which is often empty, hence the behavior you see.
>
> You want to use "git show -s", which suppresses the patch output.
... and this "git show -s" is extraordinarily hard to discover, as it
is only documented in "git log --help". Google has been my friend
here, but we should really improve that.
This patch series does essentially two things:
* Add a --no-patch synonym for -s. I'm actually wondering why the
option wasn't called this way from the beginning.
* Reorganize the doc so that "git show" actually mentions it.
====
Making it a synonym of `-s` was a means, not an end.
> I do not think it will break established use cases too badly to fix
> the behaviour of "-s" so that it does not get stuck. We saw an
> existing breakage in one test,
It's curious that your patch breaks one test case, while my approach
breaks *zero* cases.
> but asking the owners of scripts that make the same mistake of
> assuming "-s" gets stuck for some but not other options to fix that
> assumption based on an earlier faulty implementation is much easier.
"The users are using the interface wrong" is an euphemism for "I want to
break backwards-compatibility".
According to Linus Torvalds if your users are relying on a bug in your
interface, that bug is now a feature.
If we want to break backwards-compatibility then let's do so.
> So, no, I do not think we can immediately "fix". I do not think
> anybody knows if it can be done "immediately" or needs a careful
> planning to transition, and I offhand do not know if it is even
> possible to transition without fallout.
I know it can be done immediately, because my patch series already did
it.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/1373893639-13413-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxx/
--
Felipe Contreras
