[PATCH v2 0/1] Long names for `git log -S` and `git log -G`

[Illia Bobyr <illia.bobyr@gmail.com>]

Sorry, I dropped the ball on this.
I still think it would be good to get it done.

> On 11/22/24 02:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> `--pickaxe-grep` for `-G` seems like a reasonable alternative name for `-G`.
> >> That is probably OK (even though "-G" is not exactly what the
> >> pickaxe machinery wants to do; "--grep-in-patch" might be closer to
> >> the intent).
> > Imagining, that I am starting from scratch for this functionality, I think I
> > would also consider "patch".  Though, as we have 4 related argument names, I
> > wonder if using it as a prefix would create a more consistent UX.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > "--patch-grep" for "-G"
> > "--patch-modifies" for "-S"
>
> Ahh, "modifies" is a great verb.  It sounds quite logical, but "-S"
> does not have to generate a patch internally for it to work, so
> "--patch-modifies" is a bit of white lie.

Used "--patch-modifies" for the second version of the patch.

I think most people (certainly me) think about patches first, when they look at
these commands.  They are unlikely to realize right away that generating a patch
is more expensive than counting the string/regex occurrences in the pre- and
post- images.  So, if you consider the "it behaves as if" point of view rather
than "this is how it works" point of view, it is not even a lie :)

> > "--patch-search-show-all"/"--patch-show-all" for "--pickaxe-all"
> > "--patch-search-regex"/"--patch-regex" for "--pickaxe-regex"
>
> These already have their own established long names, so it is
> outside the scope of this topic, and I doubt it is worth giving
> these additional aliases (as you seem to agree).

I do not have a strong feeling on this one.  If "-S" and/or "-G" would get names
that do not start with a "--pickaxe" it might be a bit confusing that the flags
that affect their behavior do have the "--pickaxe" prefix.  If this is a valid
concern, I could probably create a separate patch to add alternative names.

---

I've updated the patch with the following names:

"--patch-grep" for "-G"
"--patch-modifies" for "-S"

On 11/19/24 10:58, Jeff King wrote:
> FWIW, I like --grep-in-patch. Saying just "--pickaxe-grep" does not
> highlight that it is about looking in the patch. I.e., it is not clear
> from the name that is different from "-Sfoo --pickaxe-regex".

Is "--patch-grep" a good alternative?  I think, using the same prefix for a
functionality that looks quite similar from the user standpoint ("-G" and "-S")
seems nice.  Using "--grep-in-patch" for "-G", "--patch-modifies" for "-S" and
"--pickaxe-regex"/"--pickaxe-all" all at the same time seems less consistent,
but I can change it if you insist.

Illia Bobyr (1):
  diff: --patch{-modifies,grep} arg names for -S and -G

 Documentation/diff-options.txt |  36 +++++------
 Documentation/git-blame.txt    |   2 +-
 Documentation/gitdiffcore.txt  |  48 ++++++++-------
 diff.c                         |  18 +++---
 diff.h                         |  11 +++-
 gitk-git/gitk                  |  10 +++-
 t/t4062-diff-pickaxe.sh        |   8 +--
 t/t4209-log-pickaxe.sh         | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 8 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)

-- 
2.45.2