From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E613C64EC4 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 19:56:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230156AbjCIT4Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:56:16 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42904 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229606AbjCIT4P (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:56:15 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 795FEF8E66 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id y14so3065818ljq.4 for ; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678391770; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O6IBPYwPoudVVHpgROf+oHuPY8ZoJ9r1fl+kHqB8jr4=; b=iDQgZFFHfeiIjhYjkZTBy02fxvc1uHHNZNgCvY6hgPpyPa9Av+uWBfTzYf+DdANc9u b1s2/zot32gRKnB2iKbp64ok9+xTx8Crf3vW2zjPnaUCRmHVy2LVfZQdnHwzCuS9xBVP r+U9VK5lpgTq5YehUcbXNAr2zbosaz8VdNIOud0/LD0GI/6da8N1TJyyU4KQtnLwwSAd NhRfssOz+qWxhIppKkunln1vK95xfHoJ7Q1EUifH08wxP3bVn9N5Q5dSCQublLnUQRKw GXlkWTGJS4g5uzpq9ZbwMsoYrb5jEB/cFPUA1EcBOmnCkQbvKEcJQ8z+rItDkpNG/M4o IKNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678391770; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=O6IBPYwPoudVVHpgROf+oHuPY8ZoJ9r1fl+kHqB8jr4=; b=rZLsiQNFLgT0gaxhgZ1GPqrhOUP06WvNcq/DR3CCEn7L1mcvb1b0hqGgQLGMjmUvFo NDMcyczu4Fc8ZC1GJP/Enlyn4npuFzxJJpsSMJ4d3whNHM6zlMXuCJmJkNtUmycogOvt EmvDB8tjIuTg5QZHpLoEAHuq6qmfvNDGLtowas4LuiMxD8NFgius0xWqZMAvAoFdWM9Z pG52mn8VnK+0fwzFOBaER/jB+jSX+354AFis2NjJv6QJ0D2Iu4viFJB2pJQfD2y4wvEz EdJHqLWCEits+hqmkpgJHEerMMVE0zp2VwOfqF4NrG7K3vaIXoorWPOzCOExCeDNGVf1 RIsQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKUWawkAzraZigctT9sjlH/IKSQxPMlQlOP4y2SyhPeNNpD+GYbY TTtfa7rnmWNu4qWR8fpcR5QnCLIFGJo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+msyBL8oY5/uKTXWSmRHkOd2FiuDxQTvHW1Im1QZURshQvkMpyEuG0eWBtiFmWq9D/Oph+Qw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1720:b0:293:4fe3:8f97 with SMTP id be32-20020a05651c172000b002934fe38f97mr6552182ljb.20.1678391770206; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 11:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from osv.localdomain ([89.175.180.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f4-20020a2eb5a4000000b0029352fc39fbsm5148ljn.63.2023.03.09.11.56.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Mar 2023 11:56:08 -0800 (PST) From: Sergey Organov To: Glen Choo Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: so/diff-merges-more (was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2023, #01; Thu, 2)) References: <871qn5pyez.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87wn4tej2f.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87wn3zqefx.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <878rg8j2vg.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <87jzzqzy20.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <874jquxc67.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:56:07 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Glen Choo's message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2023 09:43:24 -0800") Message-ID: <878rg5vgvc.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Glen Choo writes: > Sergey Organov writes: > >> I already agreed long ago that to be on the safe side we shouldn't >> simply change -m nowadays, and addressed that concern by putting -m >> behavior change under configuration option in the current series. So >> what's the reason of rejection? > > Before we start talking in circles again, I think the responses > elsewhere in the thread still accurately capture mine and Junio's > views, e.g.: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqedr28wwb.fsf@gitster.g > https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6lr0v2i0gn.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com/ There were no any response from you to my recent very direct question (that Junio did somewhat address), but what I figured from your and Junio explanation so far looks like: 1. The fact that -m does not imply -p is a mistake. There is no any reasons this exact behavior could be useful. As such, it does not make sense to support this exact behavior in --diff-merges. So the reject of --diff-merges=[no-]hide. 2. This mistake is too dangerous to fix due to subtle compatibility problems, so we can't just fix -m behavior. Thus the reject of my earlier patch "let -m imply -p". 3. Moving behavior change under option is not worth it, as nobody presumably needs this fixed -m behavior anyway (at least among 2 persons that are actually opposing the changes). So the reject of "add diffMerges-m-imply-p configuration option" patch. 4. Staring in the face inconsistency between -m and the rest of short diff-merge options is not significant enough to reconsider any of the above rejects. Did I outline your positions correctly and to the full extent? Anything else I forgot? I want to make sure I got it exactly right, as I'd still like to tweak my proposals, and I'd like to avoid the troubles I got into as much as possible. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov