Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 8, 2020, 20:05 UTC
Message-ID: <20200408200526.GA2270445@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzhbloj4u.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 12:46:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Our features written with the intent to be useful for one purpose
> often end up being used for purposes other than what the feature was
> originally written for (the "--pickaxe" has always been a bitter
> example of this for me).
> 
> For that reason, I am a bit hesitant to endorse "audit" exactly
> because of the implication of "intent".

Yeah, I agree with this.

Show 13 quoted lines

> I wonder if there is a simple-enough phrase to convey what the
> latter half of above sentence says.  "include" and "keep" are both
> good verbs---normally we discard these merges, because they do not
> contribute at the level of individual changes, but with the option,
> we "include" or "keep" these merges in the output.  It's not like
> we keep _all_ the merges, but selected merges only.  How do we
> decide which merges to keep?
> 
> I guess your "--first-merges" came from such a line of thought, and
> is the closest among the five to what I have in mind, but it drops
> too many words and loses too much meaning.  
> 
> "--keep-first-parent-merges", perhaps?

FWIW, this name left me more confused, because "first-parent merges" isn't an already-defined term I knew. And it seems like all merges have a first parent. Having read the patch description, I guess it's "a merge which isn't TREESAME to its first-parent".

I can't think of a more succinct way to name that, though. And possibly if we gave that definition in the documentation, that would be enough. The name doesn't have to be a complete description; it only has to make sense once you know what you're trying to do (and be memorable enough).

-Peff