From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b7-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44FE97081A for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 02:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778465189; cv=none; b=Zzj1olWeJFUfGCFSqIf4MtLH++HD/sVFQUdbVb19g5/cP2pGzX6UmQSvHni7/hXdoFjF74D6paCBd/Oe0MzFUlkJy5fEplEDRw/KoEiFGKe7zzqCVGGIImtT/SFoC5v2xzR5IEGgZvtKE6sej0Kys0x/EDdG+u/Pbvc3jwaGhtk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778465189; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VuDMcIRz98R0WeJSJ7n5DF7xuMDOoC3zaNiJOAszXnQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ce0txN2cPyMq8CxBHcuDSpHYATFNry55oIMq9eyYlSTXtLk47oV7uwBYmWtndlHJNpqGVccXj4rBp1oGD/uEk8GSkkIk9saVuzk050NRT2Sc1ezz8ENAQN2vLxlOLgdWNbYDOeBBmP1JxKwSMut3xC8HxfJ6yffv3f/zPbNOx3I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=cByCawfD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=nQT8RTGy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="cByCawfD"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="nQT8RTGy" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6A87A0087; Sun, 10 May 2026 22:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 10 May 2026 22:06:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1778465185; x=1778551585; bh=HfTVxLugwB Y1ne9+X90eDCSvfKNy5Yy/rDh0UMBWKj4=; b=cByCawfDkZFLpk3+hfSbsSoUs6 hm8wRgiTqx1mjyIgjRSvFMZ50Gl48gPBTJYb3r2mdkuJXHpHMPf8X/f+99+lmH/L jB6Js/Q6jcIBAK34zV7dmu3y2Pok1nN6Zw1PWXeC+6KMFInQQ6V4wdBfVtt088+J vhwQiI7i+qfqRSLXOHtkMNpljlIikmgIv9eblakPOsjVxzaXocAZyf7LnZnrcAPy Xfhc5erCd006c/HD+JwUWSyTEmqWqteqVO7+AixK9Alofw3H8VicnVCPYbfE1Ecd TKx8tHD8/njNnnaFZI+bU8tdbT2Z8MXLiXPTmlY3gxLgYGT7bQ2MDrtDJMFA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1778465185; x=1778551585; bh=HfTVxLugwBY1ne9+X90eDCSvfKNy5Yy/rDh 0UMBWKj4=; b=nQT8RTGyt2IHCoqFXzAjYpnAUQDySJWDka18RDSf9wsfwGVrvUw Nkq69HJiray7cESjnkqydn/jeA6XSjqyrac7zyYXkvEhqrZyIfYNoWveR63QE7CV jP9wcCpkrLU2BLx82v2zLqG00WZ90yp/v6kbNdQ2/U2vRhE5lGW0YblBXLKOK4Ic ALpY+ycMI9TfFBLo08PuzlbTys/I9d0hvc5vYdL9CmEO1CN9NRdWa4qkjq6Isunk OfSTtTiZuUuXGaYPO5VcmTd5hS3UyAuS15atmXHBIN3BoJXdIEJXssZs4TMh+de5 MPkDYUbDjk4rEuRBTUQf6k4TuAJm4rBE2Dg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgdduudejjeegucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtofdttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepieekueefhfetvdfftdegfeekhfffgefgfeeivddugeffgfffffevvedvieel ffdunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepthgrmhhirhgusehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpth htohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehjnhdrrghv ihhlrgesfhhrvggvrdhfrhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtoh hm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 10 May 2026 22:06:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Tamir Duberstein Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= Avila Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc: clarify --follow and log.follow for git log In-Reply-To: (Tamir Duberstein's message of "Sun, 10 May 2026 21:28:48 -0400") References: <20260507-document-log-no-follow-v2-1-ee7bcbbe612f@gmail.com> <20260510-document-log-no-follow-v3-1-d6d3368c64bb@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 11:06:24 +0900 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Tamir Duberstein writes: >> Doesn't the current text for the option >> >> `--follow`:: >> Continue listing the history of a file beyond renames >> (works only for a single file). >> >> pretty much cover that, though? The configuration side is a bit >> more verbose but essentially says the same thing, I think. >> >> `log.follow`:: >> If `true`, `git log` will act as if the `--follow` option was used when >> a single is given. This has the same limitations as `--follow`, >> i.e. it cannot be used to follow multiple files and does not work well >> on non-linear history. >> >> We do not say anything about what the feature happens to do when it >> is given a non-linear history whose branches each rename to the same >> final name that you start following from in the more recent part of >> the history, either, and stop at saying "does not work well". We >> should treat that case the same way as the case where the user gives >> a pathspec with multiple pathspec elements or a pathspec that >> matches with a directory. > > Sorry, I was unclear. I was saying that the documentation should be > explicit about the cases that constitute "undefined behavior". Ah, I see. I am not sure. This is not the only case where we have left these unspecified things unsaid, is it? I am not sure if it is worth singling out this particular case. Thanks.