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

From: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 29, 2021, 15:25 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMMLpeS4pkP_xRw_qT3mCTP4hS3iLP9TwdDf8LV+3+an9aJ3Hw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87im45clkp.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 9:22 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>
> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Why do -c and -cc imply -p, but -m does not? I tried to use both `git
> > log -c` and `git log -m` today and was confused when the latter didn't
> > produce any output. Could we change this behavior in a future version
> > of Git?
>
> "[alias] lm = log -m" can be used when you only want the logs
>
>     $ git lm maint..master
>
> or when you want to also view patches your preference is to see all
> sides of diffs of merges
>
>     $ git lm -p maint..mater
>
> but depending on who you are that may be of dubious utility.
>
> It is best to move on, writing it off as historical accident, and
> embrace the new --diff-merges=m option, instead of wasting time on
> pondering "why", because accidents do not have to have a deep reason
> behind them ;-)

If the behavior is an idiosyncratic accident of dubious utility, let's replace it with something that makes sense and is useful :-) If we make -m imply -p then no alias is necessary, `git log` would display the log without diffs and `git log -m` would display the log with all the diffs.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:38 AM Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>
> As the final purpose of all this is to have -m as user-friendly short
> option, I'd incline to finally let it imply -p, as --diff-merges=m now
> covers another side of the coin.
>
> What do you think?

I am 100% in favor of that proposal, and I can work on the code this weekend.

-Alex