Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > https://public-inbox.org/git/51E3DC47.70107@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Essentially, Stefan Beller was using 'git show --format="%ad"' and > expecting it to show only the author date, and for merge commits it > also showed the patch (--cc). I suggested -s and noticed that the > option wasn't easily discoverable, hence the patch series to better > document it and add --no-patch as a synonym. > > Probably I did not get all the subtleties of the different kinds of > outputs. I guess I considered the output of diff to be the one > specified by --format plus the patch (not considering --raw, --stat & > friends), hence "get only the output specified by --format" and > "disable the patch" were synonym to me. Thanks for double checking. It matches my recollection that we (you the author and other reviewers as well) added "--no-patch" back then to mean "no output from diff machinery, exactly the same as '-s' but use a name that is more discoverable". > Looking more closely, it's > rather clear to me they are not, and that > > git show --raw --patch --no-patch > > should be equivalent to > > git show --raw Yeah. If this were 10 years ago and we were designing from scratch, the "no output from diff machinery, more discoverable alias for '-s'" would have been "--silent" or "--squelch" and we would made any "--no-<format>" to defeat only "--<format>". It is a different matter if we can safely change what "--no-patch" means _now_. Given that "--no-patch" was introduced for the explicit purpose of giving "-s" a name that is easier to remember, and given that in the 10 years since we did so, we may have acquired at least a few more end users of Git than we used to have, hopefully your change have helped them discover and learn to use "--no-patch" to defeat any "--<format>" they gave earlier as initial options in their script, which will be broken and need to be updated to use a much less discoverable "-s". Thanks.
