Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I believe I've addressed this in details in my reply here: >>> <87o7hok8dx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>, and got no further objections from you >>> since then, so I figure I'd ask to finally let the patch in. >> >> You need to know that no response does not mean no objection. You >> repeated why the less useful combination is what you want, but that >> does not mean the combination deserves to squat on short-and-sweet >> 'd' and prevent others from coming up with a better use for it. > > Yep, but I've asked what's better use for -d than "get me diff"? Do you > really have an idea? The primary point is to leave it open for future developers. If I have to pick a candidate for "get me diff" that is the most useful among those currently are available, it is "give patches to all single-parent commit, and show tricky conflict resolution part only for merge commits". Before "--remerge-diff" was invented, my answer would have been "give patches to all single-parent commit, and show combined diff in the compact form for merge commits", aka "git log --cc". Even though we did not know if a better output presentation for merge commits would be coming, we did not let it squat on any short-and-sweet single letter synonym.
