From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] Should "log --cc" imply "log --cc -p"? Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:22:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20130205112249.GE24973@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vmwvl6lj9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <510F95D7.6010107@drmicha.warpmail.net> <7vfw1c3ujo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 05 12:23:17 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U2gcO-0000wx-I4 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:23:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751380Ab3BELWx convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:22:53 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:33117 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146Ab3BELWx (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 06:22:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 28173 invoked by uid 107); 5 Feb 2013 11:24:18 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:24:18 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:22:49 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:16:52AM +0100, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 = Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wr= ote: > > "git log/diff-files -U8" do not need "-p" to enable textual patches= , > > for example. It is "I already told you that I want 8-line context. > > For what else, other than showing textual diff, do you think I told > > you that for?" and replacing "8-line context" with various other > > options that affect patch generation will give us a variety of end > > user complaints that would tell us that C) is more intuitive to > > them. >=20 > On a related note I think "--full-diff" should imply "-p" too. I don't think that is in the same class. --full-diff is quite useful fo= r many other diff formats. E.g.: git log --full-diff --raw Makefile If you are proposing to default to "-p" when "--full-diff" is used but no format is given, that is a slightly different thing. The --full-diff in such a case is indeed useless, but I do not think it necessarily follows that "-p" was what the user wanted. -Peff