Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
It is not who wrote the patch.
You either did not read what I wrote earlier in the thread
... is another reason why I want to be much more careful about
"should --no-patch be changed to mean something other than -s" than
"should -s be fixed not to be sticky for some but not all options".
The latter is not a documented "feature" and it clearly was a bug
that "-s --raw" did not honor "--raw". The former was a documented
"feature", even though it may have been a suboptimal one.
or you are trying to paint a picture that is different from reality
with whatever motive you have. Either way, I am not done with the
thread, as I said.
