Re: git log fails to show all changes for a file

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

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>  * When '-p' is given, we show only diff with first-parent by
>>    default, regardless of the traversal (i.e. --first-parent option
>>    currently controls both traversal and patch display, but in the
>>    new world order, it reverts back to purely a traversal option).
>
> So this is a suggested change to "-p -m" behavior?

Not really.  This is a suggested behaviour for "git log -p"; I
wasn't very enthused by the idea to turn --cc when user said -p
without telling them what we are doing.  In other words, if the
users want combined, they should say --cc (and they will get a
single-parent patch for non-merges with --cc) so there is no reason
not to do this, as long as we fix --cc so that "git log --cc"
implies "git log --cc -p".

> Yes, that sounds sane. The current "-p -m" behavior is not useful at all.
>
> So if I understand rightly, we'd have:
>
>  "-p" would be what is currently  "-p --cc"

Not really.

>  "-p -m" would be what is currently "-p --first-parent"

Not really.  I was dropping "-m" entirely with "we could do -p -m2
but I do not think we should bother".

>  "-p --no-show-merge-diffs" would be what is currently "-p"

Yes.

> and the rationale would be that
>
>  (a) the current "-p" is hiding things, and while you can add "--cc",
> that requires that you really understand what is being hidden, which
> is a bad default (the complaint that started this discussion)
>
>  (b) the current "-p -m" is useless crazy stuff, and you'd rather use
> it for something that you actually find very common and useful
>
> If so, I agree entirely.
>
>               Linus