git whatchanged

git whatchanged

[Chris Judkins-Fisher]

Hey,

I still use git whatchanged

Thanks,
Chris

Re: git whatchanged

[Chris Judkins-Fisher]

Also, my initial email was blocked for being HTML. In future
deprecation messages, I think it'd be helpful to include
https://subspace.kernel.org/etiquette.html up front if the emails will
be subject to those rules. Seeing a blocked email when I'm just trying
to follow the instructions you gave me is an unpleasant experience,
and I'd imagine it dissuades some folks from giving you feedback.

Thanks for considering that,
Chris


On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 12:51 PM Chris Judkins-Fisher
<chris.judkins-fisher@donorschoose.org> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I still use git whatchanged
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

RE: git whatchanged

[rsbecker]

On August 19, 2025 1:51 PM, Chris Judkins-Fisher wrote:
>I still use git whatchanged

I did too. However, now that git log --since has basically the same functionality,
Perhaps setting up a git alias might do the trick for you:

git config --global alias.whatchanged 'log'

so

git whatchanged --since="2 week"

or something like that should continue to work after the command is
removed.

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, at 22:57, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
> On August 19, 2025 1:51 PM, Chris Judkins-Fisher wrote:
>>I still use git whatchanged
>
> I did too. However, now that git log --since has basically the same
> functionality,
> Perhaps setting up a git alias might do the trick for you:
>
> git config --global alias.whatchanged 'log'
>
> so
>
> git whatchanged --since="2 week"
>
> or something like that should continue to work after the command is
> removed.

You can’t alias core commands.  So this will fail in the reported way
before Git 3.0.  Then from that point out it will work as an alias.

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

RE: git whatchanged

[rsbecker]

On August 20, 2025 3:53 AM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, at 22:57, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
>> On August 19, 2025 1:51 PM, Chris Judkins-Fisher wrote:
>>>I still use git whatchanged
>>
>> I did too. However, now that git log --since has basically the same
>> functionality, Perhaps setting up a git alias might do the trick for
>> you:
>>
>> git config --global alias.whatchanged 'log'
>>
>> so
>>
>> git whatchanged --since="2 week"
>>
>> or something like that should continue to work after the command is
>> removed.
>
>You can’t alias core commands.  So this will fail in the reported way before Git 3.0.
>Then from that point out it will work as an alias.

I know. I was being pro-active with my answer on how to deal with this.

Re: git whatchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, at 22:57, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
>> On August 19, 2025 1:51 PM, Chris Judkins-Fisher wrote:
>>>I still use git whatchanged
>>
>> I did too. However, now that git log --since has basically the same
>> functionality,
>> Perhaps setting up a git alias might do the trick for you:
>>
>> git config --global alias.whatchanged 'log'
>>
>> so
>>
>> git whatchanged --since="2 week"
>>
>> or something like that should continue to work after the command is
>> removed.
>
> You can’t alias core commands.  So this will fail in the reported way
> before Git 3.0.  Then from that point out it will work as an alias.

Not quite.

  $ git -c alias.whatchanged='!echo bar' \
	whatchanged --i-still-use-this -2 --oneline
  7c10e48e81 describe: pass commit to describe_commit()
  :100644 100644 72b2e1162c 04df89d56b M	builtin/describe.c
  8cfd4ac215 describe: handle blob traversal with no commits
  :100644 100644 f7bea3c8c5 72b2e1162c M	builtin/describe.c
  :100755 100755 feec57bcbc 2c70cc561a M	t/t6120-describe.sh

Your alias with the same name as a real command is silently ignored,
and when the real command disappears, it will start working.

Having said that, as "log --raw" is even shorter to type than
"whatchanged", these people are really better off without such an
alias.

Re: git whatchanged

[Chris Judkins-Fisher]

What I actually type is "git wh<tab>". That does result in less typing
for me than "git log --raw" would. For now I've added the following
alias, which takes precedence over the full "whatchanged" completion:
whatchange = "log --raw"


On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:49 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, at 22:57, rsbecker@nexbridge.com wrote:
> >> On August 19, 2025 1:51 PM, Chris Judkins-Fisher wrote:
> >>>I still use git whatchanged
> >>
> >> I did too. However, now that git log --since has basically the same
> >> functionality,
> >> Perhaps setting up a git alias might do the trick for you:
> >>
> >> git config --global alias.whatchanged 'log'
> >>
> >> so
> >>
> >> git whatchanged --since="2 week"
> >>
> >> or something like that should continue to work after the command is
> >> removed.
> >
> > You can’t alias core commands.  So this will fail in the reported way
> > before Git 3.0.  Then from that point out it will work as an alias.
>
> Not quite.
>
>   $ git -c alias.whatchanged='!echo bar' \
>         whatchanged --i-still-use-this -2 --oneline
>   7c10e48e81 describe: pass commit to describe_commit()
>   :100644 100644 72b2e1162c 04df89d56b M        builtin/describe.c
>   8cfd4ac215 describe: handle blob traversal with no commits
>   :100644 100644 f7bea3c8c5 72b2e1162c M        builtin/describe.c
>   :100755 100755 feec57bcbc 2c70cc561a M        t/t6120-describe.sh
>
> Your alias with the same name as a real command is silently ignored,
> and when the real command disappears, it will start working.
>
> Having said that, as "log --raw" is even shorter to type than
> "whatchanged", these people are really better off without such an
> alias.

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, at 18:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Your alias with the same name as a real command is silently ignored,
> and when the real command disappears, it will start working.

That’s what I intended to mean.

> Having said that, as "log --raw" is even shorter to type than
> "whatchanged", these people are really better off without such an
> alias.

I’m wondering based on the emails so far if the error message should
spell out that (1) you can help yourself beyond reporting
i-still-use-this and specifically that (2) there is a git-log(1)
equivalent (like git-whatchanged(1) says).

The message itself reads like it could be read like: tell us and we
might put the brakes on removing it (and that’s it).

-- 
still my

Re: git whatchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> The message itself reads like it could be read like: tell us and we
> might put the brakes on removing it (and that’s it).

Yeah, that is a wrong interpretation we did not want to trigger.

"If you are a developer of a script that uses whatchanged, then
rewrite it with 'log --raw --no-merges' and be happy.  If the script
is very widely used, dropping us a note would be nice, as we can
redirect end-user inquiries of your script towards you.  If you are
an end-user of such a script, bug your supplier of such a script.
Thanks."

perhaps?

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, at 23:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> The message itself reads like it could be read like: tell us and we
>> might put the brakes on removing it (and that’s it).
>
> Yeah, that is a wrong interpretation we did not want to trigger.
>
> "If you are a developer of a script that uses whatchanged, then
> rewrite it with 'log --raw --no-merges' and be happy.  If the script
> is very widely used, dropping us a note would be nice, as we can
> redirect end-user inquiries of your script towards you.  If you are
> an end-user of such a script, bug your supplier of such a script.
> Thanks."
>
> perhaps?

That looks like it covers all the bases.  Great.

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

git whatchanged

[Chris Palmer]

We still use whatchanged frequently. Sometimes to check the later 
commits, and sometimes as an easy way of searching for changes to a 
specific file.

I'm not clear whether you are proposing removing the functionality 
altogether, or whether there is a new/better way to do it.

Thanks, Chris

-- 
Chris Palmer
chris@chrispalmer.uk

  

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

Hi

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025, at 15:04, Chris Palmer wrote:
> We still use whatchanged frequently. Sometimes to check the later
> commits, and sometimes as an easy way of searching for changes to a
> specific file.
>
> I'm not clear whether you are proposing removing the functionality
> altogether, or whether there is a new/better way to do it.

You can replace it with `git log`:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

... with some minor output caveats about empty commits (commits with
no changes).[1]

🔗 1: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20250825085428.GA367101@coredump.intra.peff.net/

> I'm not clear whether you are proposing removing the functionality
> altogether,

Yes, the command is slated for removal in Git 3.0.  They have not decided when
that version will be released.

(although the functionality is still covered by git-log(1))

See this doc (from 2.51.0): https://github.com/git/git/tree/c44beea485f0f2feaf460e2ac87fdd5608d63cf0/Documentation/BreakingChanges.adoc

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

git whatchanged

[Jesse Hathaway]

Git developers,

Thanks for the wonderful tool. I still use `git whatchanged` I realize
that `git log --raw` is the same output, but it doesn't have the same
mnemonic resonance as `git whatchanged`. So here is my small vote to
keep the feature. Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway

Re: git whatchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

Jesse Hathaway <jesse@mbuki-mvuki.org> writes:

> Git developers,
>
> Thanks for the wonderful tool. I still use `git whatchanged` I realize
> that `git log --raw` is the same output, but it doesn't have the same
> mnemonic resonance as `git whatchanged`.

The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings.  Why not
learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of
the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status",
which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 21:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:a
> The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings.  Why not
> learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of
> the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status",

* --stat

Probably.

> which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

Re: git whatchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 21:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:a
>> The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings.  Why not
>> learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of
>> the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status",
>
> * --stat
>
> Probably.

Indeed.  Thanks for correcting me.  These days I use --compact-summary
instead myself, though ;-)

>
>> which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?

git whatchanged

[Michael Tourigny (TERAWE CORPORATION)]

I use git whatchanged once in a while.
I like it because it is easy to remember.

git whatchanged

[Jose Jaramillo]

I still use this! ~J

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

Hi

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025, at 22:49, Jose Jaramillo wrote:
> I still use this! ~J

You can replace it with `git log`:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

And get basically the same output.

Or you can use some more modern options to git-log(1) that are more
likely to be suitable for your needs:

https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8qimrrxo.fsf@gitster.g/T/#md4350a5c8cd15dc5515f140f8a4d65cd86843584

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

Re: git whatchanged

[Jose Jaramillo]

That's super helpful, thank you!

On Wed, Sep 10, 2025, at 2:03 PM, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025, at 22:49, Jose Jaramillo wrote:
> > I still use this! ~J
> 
> You can replace it with `git log`:
> 
> • Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
> • Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`
> 
> And get basically the same output.
> 
> Or you can use some more modern options to git-log(1) that are more
> likely to be suitable for your needs:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8qimrrxo.fsf@gitster.g/T/#md4350a5c8cd15dc5515f140f8a4d65cd86843584
> 
> -- 
> Kristoffer Haugsbakk
> 

git whatchanged

[Neal Miller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20 bytes --]

--i-still-use-this

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

Good morning

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 03:00, Neal Miller wrote:
> --i-still-use-this

You can replace it with `git log`:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more use for
`--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only reading
the output.

Re: git whatchanged

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:

> Good morning
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 03:00, Neal Miller wrote:
>> --i-still-use-this
>
> You can replace it with `git log`:
>
> • Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
> • Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`
>
> Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more use for
> `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only reading
> the output.

Additionally, "--no-merges" may not be of value that exceeds the
cost of typing that many characters.

Re: git whatchanged

[Neal Miller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

Thank you, I found that 'git log -p --abbrev-commit --pretty=medium'
gives the identical output as the the 'git whatchanged -p --abbrev-
commit --pretty=medium' command that my alias, 'gwch' was set to use in
oh-my-zsh. I'll just set my alias to that now instead.
On Fri, 2025-09-26 at 09:13 +0200, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:


> 
> > Good morning
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025, at 03:00, Neal Miller wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --i-still-use-this
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> > You can replace it with `git log`:
> > • Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`• Replace with: `git log <opts> --
no-merges --raw`
> > Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more use
for`--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output.
>



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

git whatchanged

[Jiří Bašek]

Hi, 
I am still using this very convenient command.

Best regards,
Jiri Basek

> 'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.
If you still use this command, please add an extra
option, '--i-still-use-this', on the command line
and let us know you still use it by sending an e-mail
to <git@vger.kernel.org>.  Thanks.
fatal: refusing to run without --i-still-use-this

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

Good morning

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025, at 08:48, Jiří Bašek wrote:
> I am still using this very convenient command.

This command is being removed because git-log(1) supplanted it over 12
years ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with different
defaults.

Here’s how you can replace your git-whatcanged(1) use with `git log`:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more
use for `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output (not feeding the output to another program).

-- 
Stoffi

Git whatchanged

[Filippo Falezza]

To whom it may concern,

I am reaching out as I am still using the whatchanged option in git, which is very useful for my coding and handling merges.
Please keep this option and do not break userspace.

Thank you
kind regards

____________
Filippo Falezza

Re: Git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

Good evening

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025, at 16:20, Filippo Falezza wrote:
> I am reaching out as I am still using the whatchanged option in git,
> which is very useful for my coding and handling merges.
> Please keep this option and do not break userspace.

This command is being removed because git-log(1) supplanted it over 12
years ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with different
defaults.

You can replace the command with `git log` thus:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more
use for `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output (not feeding the output to another program).

git whatchanged

[Grzegorz Koperwas]

Hello!

I recently got this output from git:

> 'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.
> If you still use this command, please add an extra
> option, '--i-still-use-this', on the command line
> and let us know you still use it by sending an e-mail
> to <git@vger.kernel.org>.  Thanks.
> fatal: refusing to run without --i-still-use-this

I am letting you know, that I still use this command :)

Have a great day

Grzegorz Koperwas

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025, at 14:44, Grzegorz Koperwas wrote:
> I recently got this output from git:
>
>> 'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.
>> If you still use this command, please add an extra
>> option, '--i-still-use-this', on the command line
>> and let us know you still use it by sending an e-mail
>> to <git@vger.kernel.org>.  Thanks.
>> fatal: refusing to run without --i-still-use-this
>
> I am letting you know, that I still use this command :)

This command is being removed because it was supplanted by git-log(1) a
long while ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with
different defaults.

You can replace it with `git log` in this way:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more
use for `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output (not feeding the output to another program).

git whatchanged

[Julian Squires]

I still use git whatchanged.  I know there are reasonable invocations of git log that replace it, but it is part of my muscle memory.  I guess when it's finally removed, I'll have to setup an alias.  Normally I wouldn't send an email about this, but you specifically asked.

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025, at 14:16, Julian Squires wrote:
> I still use git whatchanged.  I know there are reasonable invocations
> of git log that replace it, but it is part of my muscle memory.  I
> guess when it's finally removed, I'll have to setup an alias.

You can set up an alias with that name on Git 2.51.1 (and later Git
2.52.0 (not released)).

    git config set --global alias.whatchanged 'log --raw --no-merges'

You cannot do that on Git 2.51.0 since you cannot alias builtin
commands.  But you can alias deprecated builtin commands on 2.51.1.

> Normally I wouldn't send an email about this, but you specifically
> asked.

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

git whatchanged

[Remke Schuurmans]

'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.
If you still use this command, please add an extra
option, '--i-still-use-this', on the command line
and let us know you still use it by sending an e-mail
to <git@vger.kernel.org>.  Thanks.
fatal: refusing to run without --i-still-use-thi

;) I still use this one.

with kind regards,
Remke Schuurmans
The Netherlands

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, at 09:02, Remke Schuurmans wrote:
> 'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.
> If you still use this command, please add an extra
> option, '--i-still-use-this', on the command line
> and let us know you still use it by sending an e-mail
> to <git@vger.kernel.org>.  Thanks.
> fatal: refusing to run without --i-still-use-thi
>
> ;) I still use this one.

This command is being removed because it was supplanted by git-log(1) a
long while ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with
different defaults.

You can replace it with `git log` in this way:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more
use for `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output (not feeding the output to another program).

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, at 10:02, Remke Schuurmans wrote:
> Thank you for taking time to answer my mail.
> I had this command still as an alias :))
>
> I'm old scool :)

You cannot alias builtin Git commands on the version you are running
(which must be Git 2.51.0 given the output you got).

But you can alias builtin commands that are deprecated on Git 2.51.1 and
2.51.2:

    git config set --global alias.whatchanged 'log --raw --no-merges'

git whatchanged

[Franz Brauße]

Dear git maintainers,

I am using "git whatchanged" on a regular basis to understand what
files specific commits touched and in what way. I vote for not removing
this functionality from git.

Many thanks,
Franz Brauße

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025, at 12:40, Franz Brauße wrote:
> I am using "git whatchanged" on a regular basis to understand what
> files specific commits touched and in what way.

This command is being removed because it was supplanted by git-log(1) a
long while ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with
different defaults.

You can replace it with `git log` in this way:

• Given: `git whatchanged <opts>`
• Replace with: `git log <opts> --no-merges --raw`

Additionally for the sake of readability, you might have more
use for `--stat` or `--name-only` rather than `--raw` if you are only
reading the output (not feeding the output to another program).

> I vote for not removing this functionality from git.

The intent behind the message was not to cast a vote but I can totally
understand it being read that way.

See: https://git-scm.com/docs/BreakingChanges

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk

Re: git whatchanged

[Franz Brauße]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:11:52 +0100 "Kristoffer Haugsbakk"
<kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> wrote:
> This command is being removed because it was supplanted by git-log(1) a
> long while ago. Both commands use the same machinery, just with
> different defaults.
> 
> You can replace it with `git log` in this way:
> [snip]
> See: https://git-scm.com/docs/BreakingChanges

Thank you for the additional infos and the link, I didn't know that! I
suppose when it's being removed, I can resurrect the "whatchanged"
subcommand via the config's alias mechanism (git wh<TAB> is just baked
into my fingers at the moment).

Might I suggest that for future deprecations instead of an annoying to
type flag just a message like "this command is scheduled for removal in
v<VERSION>, see <URL>; use "git log --raw --no-merges" for similar
functionality" is printed in addition to the command still working as
before while it's there? Similar to how "git pull" informs users about
the rebase vs. merge options in case of diverged branches?

Anyhow, thanks again for all your work on this extremely nice tool!

Franz

Re: git whatchanged

[Kristoffer Haugsbakk]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025, at 15:16, Franz Brauße wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:11:52 +0100 "Kristoffer Haugsbakk"
>>[snip]
>
> Thank you for the additional infos and the link, I didn't know that! I
> suppose when it's being removed, I can resurrect the "whatchanged"
> subcommand via the config's alias mechanism (git wh<TAB> is just baked
> into my fingers at the moment).

You can set up an alias with that name on Git 2.51.1 and 2.51.2 today.
(And later Git 2.52.0 (soon to be released).)

    git config set --global alias.whatchanged 'log --raw --no-merges'

You cannot do that on Git 2.51.0 since you cannot alias builtin
commands.  But you can alias deprecated builtin commands on
those versions.

> Might I suggest that for future deprecations instead of an annoying to
> type flag just a message like "this command is scheduled for removal in
> v<VERSION>, see <URL>; use "git log --raw --no-merges" for similar
> functionality"

This is the current error message on Git 2.51.1 and later:

    $ git whatchanged
    'git whatchanged' is nominated for removal.

    hint: You can replace 'git whatchanged <opts>' with:
    hint:   git log <opts> --raw --no-merges
    hint: Or make an alias:
    hint:   git config set --global alias.whatchanged 'log --raw --no-merges'

    If you still use this command, here's what you can do:

    - read https://git-scm.com/docs/BreakingChanges.html
    - check if anyone has discussed this on the mailing
      list and if they came up with something that can
      help you: https://lore.kernel.org/git/?q=git%20whatchanged
    - send an email to <git@vger.kernel.org> to let us
      know that you still use this command and were unable
      to determine a suitable replacement

> for future deprecations [...] is printed in addition to the command
> still working as before while it's there? Similar to how "git pull"
> informs users about the rebase vs. merge options in case of diverged
> branches?

The thing about git-whatchanged(1) is that it has been deprecated for
twelve years according to the man page. But the man page didn’t
explicitly say “deprecated” in 2.51.0 and earlier. But that seems to
have been the intent. (Now it says explicitly that in the man page on
2.51.1 and later.)

This `--i-still-use-this` thing was only implemented (to the best of my
knowledge) for commands and functionality that have already been
deprecated for a long time. So it will not be used for fresh
deprecations.

>
> Anyhow, thanks again for all your work on this extremely nice tool!