From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 07:50:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] whatchanged: document its historical nature
Message-ID: <20130812074959.GJ2337@serenity.lan>
In-Reply-To: <7vtxiy4m6o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:57:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> writes:
> 
> >> +New users are encouraged to use linkgit:git-log[1] instead.  The
> >> +`whatchanged` command is essentially the same as linkgit:git-log[1]
> >> +run with different defaults that shows a --raw diff outputat the
> >
> > s/outputat/output at/
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > Although I wonder if it would be better to say
> >
> >     New users are encouraged to use linkgit:git-log[1] instead.  The
> >     `whatchanged` command is essentially the same as linkgit:git-log[1]
> >     with the `--raw` option specified.
> 
> But that is different from the truth, no?  "git whatchanged -p" will
> not behave as if "git whatchanged -p" with the "--raw" specified.
> The 'raw' kicks in only as a default.

Hmm, I hadn't realised that specifying "-p" would disable the "--raw".
I still find the last sentence of the original patch slightly awkward
though.  How about

    New users are encouraged to use linkgit:git-log[1] instead.  The
    `whatchanged` command is essentially the same as linkgit:git-log[1]
    but defaults to ``raw'' diff output and does not show merge
    commits.

?