Re: Why doesn't `git log -m` imply `-p`?

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> No, I don't mean it. The idea is to let -m be alias for
>> "--diff-merges=on -p",...
>
> Ahhhh, that makes a whole lot of difference.  Thanks.
>
>> If, on the other hand, it's just me who fundamentally misunderstands the
>> design, then I need to be corrected fast, before I make significant
>> damage.
>
> No, it was I who was confused, as I somehow incorrectly thoguht that
> your plan was to make "-m" identical to "--diff-merges=on".
>
> But if your plan is to make
>
>     "git log -m"    (no other option)
>     "git log -m -p"
>
> behave identically to "git log --diff-merges=on -p",

> and similarly make
>
>     "git log -m --stat"
>     "git log -m --raw"
>
> behave identically to "git log --diff-merges=on --stat/--raw", I
> think that such a design makes quite a lot of sense.

>
> It will still keep the purity of "--diff-merges=<choice>" (that is,
> it only is about if/how a merge is expressed in some form of diff),
> while solving the longstanding usability issue of "-m" that led to
> Alex's "when a user says -m, diff output is expected", that came
> quite early in this thread.