Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > So your rationale to reject a perfectly logical behavior that *everyone* agrees
> > with is that it might break a hypothetical patch?
>
> Everyone is an overstatement, as there are only Sergey and you,
Matthieu Moy also agreed [1]:
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
That's pretty much everyone that has participated in the discussion.
> and as we all saw in public some members stated they will not engage in a
> discussion thread in which you were involved.
Smoke screen.
> > Just do `--silent` instead.
>
> I am *not* shutting the door for "--no-patch"; I am only saying that
> it shouldn't be done so hastily.
> But conflating the two will delay the fix for "-s sticks unnecessarily" that
> is ready for this cycle.
That breaks backwards-compatibility.
Why are your patches excempt from bacwards-compatibility considerations?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/4f713a29-1a34-2f71-ee54-c01020be903a@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
--
Felipe Contreras
