Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2023, #01; Mon, 2)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I believe I've addressed this in details in my reply here:
>>> <87o7hok8dx.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>, 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.