Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> diff --git a/Documentation/diff-options.txt b/Documentation/diff-options.txt >> @@ -43,66 +43,74 @@ endif::git-diff[] >> +-m:: >> + Show diffs for merge commits in the default format. This is >> + similar to '--diff-merges=on' (which see) except `-m` will >> + produce no output unless `-p` is given as well. > > I'm having difficulty grasping the parenthetical "(which see)" comment. I am, too. I know what it means when written in the more common Latin abbreviation (q.v.), but I suspect it may be rare to spell it in English like this. I found https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/latin-terms-and-abbreviations/ that starts its explanation with this: The abbreviation q.v. stands for quod vide, which translates literally as “which see,” although in practice it mea something more like “for which see elsewhere. and it goes on to say: The reader is expected to know how to locate this information without further assistance. Since there is always the possibility that the reader won’t be able to find the information cited by q.v., it’s better to use a simple English phrase such as “for more on this topic, see pages 72-3” or “a detailed definition appears on page 16.” Such phrases are immediately comprehensible to the reader (who may not even know what q.v. means) and remove any ambiguity about where additional information is located. which only applies halfway to this example, as with the text before it makes it very clear for readers that they need to learn about "--diff-merges=on". It is so clear to the point that the only effect "(which see)" here has is to waste bytes and confuses readers, I am afraid.
