Re: [PATCH 6/6] diff-merges: let -m imply -p

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2021, 21:44 UTC
Message-ID: <YKWG0jgYXAnKUJNR@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BEwp5bWWaBkv-G+OAJgd+pcsB=GoMCBd+gnhK5JAAnFgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Interesting.  I have a strong preference for --diff-merges=remerge
> (yeah, I know it's not upstream, but it's been ready to submit for
> months, but just backed up behind the other ort changes.  Sorry, I
> can't push those through any faster).  I've had others using it for
> about 9 months now.

I agree. The --diff-merges=remerge behavior has also been the default in Gerrit since time immemorial, and when I first started using Gerrit it was one of my favorite things about it.

That is because it shows the human content of the merge: it shows exactly what changes were made after the automated part was done.

I don't have a strong opinion about what the default for -m should be.

> I think --cc is a lot better than -m for helping you find what users
> changed when they did the merge, but I agree the format is somewhat
> difficult for many users to understand.

My experience in training new users has been that --cc is quite counterintuitive for them. Like you're hinting, I suspect it's fundamentally just meant to be a fast approximation to --diff-merges=remerge.

Thanks, Jonathan