Re: [RFC] revision: Add --sticky-default option

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> > I'd probably call it something verbose and boring like
> > --use-default-with-uninteresting or --default-on-negative.
> > I dunno.
>
> These two names are improvement, but there needs a hint that the
> change we are interested in is to use default even when revs are
> given as long as ALL of them are negative ones.  Which in turn means
> there is NO positive ones given.
>
> So perhaps "--use-default-without-any-positive".
>
> Having said that, I have to wonder how serious a breakage we are
> going to cause to established users and scripts if we made this
> change without any explicit option.  After all, it would be rather
> obvious that people will get a history with some commits (or none at
> all) when they were expecting no output that the "default behaviour"
> has changed.  I also wonder how would scripts take advantage of the
> current "defeat --default as soon as we see any rev, even a negative
> one"---in short, I am not sure if the theoretical regression this
> new "option" is trying to avoid is worth avoiding in the first
> place.
>
> Is there a way to say "usually this command has built-in --default=HEAD
> behaviour, but I am declining that" already, i.e.
>
>     $ git log --no-default $REVS
>
> that will result in an empty set if we accept the change proposed
> here but make it unconditional?  If so "This and future versions of
> Git will honor the --default even when there are other revisions
> given on the command line, as long as they are ALL negative ones.
> This is a backward incompatibile change, but you can update your
> scripts with '--no-default' if you do not like the new behaviour" in
> the release notes may be a viable alternative way forward.