{"thread":{"id":"54860","subject":"[BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag","startedAt":"2020-12-20T04:24:13Z","lastAt":"2020-12-23T23:56:16Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Érico Rolim","Đoàn Trần Công Danh","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"412675","messageId":"CAFDeuWOit1vKUT38Uvbj2wAsb5CBo59p2h=SE6FGNb6XGOGG-w@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"54860","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag","fromName":"Érico Rolim","fromEmail":"erico.erc@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-12-20T04:23:05Z","receivedAt":"2020-12-20T04:24:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"erico.erc@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/51213287b982c6a816313e6e9a4dd223404c2429f23a8ef763d9216ae6628605?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi!\n\nWhen using the command\n\n git log --patch --name-status\n\nIt seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean\nthat I get the same output as simply running\n\n git log --name-status\n\nIt would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would\nallow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes\nthemselves, at the same time.\n\nHappy holidays,\nÉrico\n"},{"id":"412714","messageId":"X+CgJCj7/tadldUg@danh.dev","threadId":"54860","inReplyTo":"CAFDeuWOit1vKUT38Uvbj2wAsb5CBo59p2h=SE6FGNb6XGOGG-w@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag","fromName":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh","fromEmail":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-12-21T13:16:20Z","receivedAt":"2020-12-21T13:17:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/42673067?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote:\n> Hi!\n> \n> When using the command\n> \n> git log --patch --name-status\n> \n> It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean\n> that I get the same output as simply running\n> \n> git log --name-status\n> \n> It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would\n> allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes\n> themselves, at the same time.\n\nI'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not,\nhowever, the Documentation says something about \"Show only\"...\n\nAnyway, --patch-with-raw provides more information than\n--patch --name-status combined.\nI guess it's too much information?\n\n-- \nDanh\n"},{"id":"412757","messageId":"xmqq5z4vm0vt.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","threadId":"54860","inReplyTo":"X+CgJCj7/tadldUg@danh.dev","subject":"Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2020-12-21T19:09:58Z","receivedAt":"2020-12-21T19:10:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes:\n\n> On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote:\n>> Hi!\n>> \n>> When using the command\n>> \n>> git log --patch --name-status\n>> \n>> It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean\n>> that I get the same output as simply running\n>> \n>> git log --name-status\n>> \n>> It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would\n>> allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes\n>> themselves, at the same time.\n>\n> I'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not,\n> however, the Documentation says something about \"Show only\"...\n\nPerhaps the documentation would need to be clarified? I suspect\nthis is not very useful combination [*1*] and if this were years\nago, I would suggest making the command line error out, instead of\nsilently ignore one and keep the other one in effect.\n\n\n[Footnote]\n\n*1* \"--patch --stat --summmary\" was designed as the standard \"both a\n summary as well as the changes\".\n"},{"id":"412963","messageId":"X+PY0/yTwrXjVRvb@danh.dev","threadId":"54860","inReplyTo":"xmqq5z4vm0vt.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com","subject":"Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag","fromName":"Đoàn Trần Công Danh","fromEmail":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","sentAt":"2020-12-23T23:54:59Z","receivedAt":"2020-12-23T23:56:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"congdanhqx@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/42673067?v=4"},"body":"On 2020-12-21 11:09:58-0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes:\n> \n> > On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote:\n> >> Hi!\n> >> \n> >> When using the command\n> >> \n> >> git log --patch --name-status\n> >> \n> >> It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean\n> >> that I get the same output as simply running\n> >> \n> >> git log --name-status\n> >> \n> >> It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would\n> >> allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes\n> >> themselves, at the same time.\n> >\n> > I'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not,\n> > however, the Documentation says something about \"Show only\"...\n> \n> Perhaps the documentation would need to be clarified?\n\nHonestly, I think documentation is fine, \"Show only\"... should mean\nonly.\n\n>\n> I suspect\n> this is not very useful combination [*1*] and if this were years\n> ago, I would suggest making the command line error out, instead of\n> silently ignore one and keep the other one in effect.\n\nAlthough, I don't have strong opinion on this combination,\nI would say yes, and we should error out for other combination like\n--name-status --patch too. And Érico, in a reply to me, said he would\nprefer seeing an error instead of silencely discard one option.\nI'll look into the implementation in this weekend.\n\n> \n> \n> [Footnote]\n> \n> *1* \"--patch --stat --summmary\" was designed as the standard \"both a\n> summary as well as the changes\".\n\n-- \nDanh\n"}]}