Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] git log: configurable default format for merge diffs

From: Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2021, 18:04 UTC
Message-ID: <87wnt84s0h.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsg3whka6.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 29 quoted lines

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> These patches introduce capability to configure the default format of
>> output of diffs for merge commits by means of new log.diffMerges
>> configuration variable. The default format is then used by -m,
>> --diff-merges=m, and new --diff-merges=default options.
>>
>> In particular,
>>
>>   git config log.diffMerges first-parent
>>
>> will change -m option format from "separate" to "first-parent" that
>> will in turn cause, say,
>>
>>   git show -m <merge_commit>
>>
>> to output diff to the first parent only, instead of appending
>> typically large and surprising diff to the second parent at the end of
>> the output.
>
> I think that it is a good goal to free a short-and-sweet "-m" from
> getting tied forever to the current "two-tree diff for each of the
> parent" (aka "separate"), and a configuration to change what the
> "-m" option means would be a good approach to do so.  It would help
> the interactive use by human end-users, which is the point of having
> short-and-sweet options.  Existing scripts may depend on the current
> behaviour, so the configuration cannot be introduced right away, but
> over time they can be migrated to use the longer and more explicit
> option "--diff-merges=separate".

Yep, that's exactly the plan I have in mind.

To tell the truth, I hope there are no scripts that use "git log -m -p", or "git show -m", but I do want to be on the safe side with it anyway, and then sometime in the future maybe we will be safe to change configuration default.

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> But I do not see much point in adding the "--diff-merges=default".
> Who is the target audience?  Certainly not scripts that want to
> avoid depending on the 'default' that can be different and easily
> vary per user.

There are 2 reasons to have "default":

1. --diff-merges=default and -m are not exact synonyms: unlike -m,
--diff-merges=default (similar to other --diff-merges options)
immediately enables diff output for merges, without -p, thus, for
example, allowing to output diffs for merge commits only.

The exact synonyms are rather --diff-merges=m and --diff-merges=default, and then we get to the next reason:

2. We have descriptive long name for every other option, and it'd be an
exception if we'd have none for --diff-merges=m. In fact, it's
--diff-merges=m that could have been removed, but it'd break resemblance
with --cc and -c that both do have their --diff-merges=cc and
--diff-merges=c counterparts.

Overall, having "default" has both functional and consistency merits.

> Or is the plan to deprecate and remove the short-and-sweet "-m"
> option and standardize on "--diff-merges=<style>"?  If so, such a
> design makes sense from pureness and completeness standpoint, but I
> am not sure if that is a good design for practical use.

No, what I have in mind is resurrection of -m as more useful option, not removing it.

Thanks, -- Sergey Organov