From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:02:31 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] log: reject pickaxe options when combined with -L Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <81cb521401210bfbcd05f8201f75e93bccfba712.1772652091.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> "Michael Montalbo via GitGitGadget" writes: > From: Michael Montalbo > > The previous commit fixed a crash when -G, -S, or --find-object was > used together with -L and rename detection. However, these options > still have no effect on -L output: line-log uses its own > commit-filtering logic in line_log_filter() and never consults the > pickaxe machinery. Rather than silently ignoring these options, reject > the combination with a clear error message. > > This replaces the known-breakage tests from the previous commit with > tests that verify the rejection for all three options. A future series > could teach line-log to honor these options and remove this restriction. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Montalbo > --- > builtin/log.c | 4 ++++ > t/t4211-line-log.sh | 52 ++++++++------------------------------------- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/log.c b/builtin/log.c > index 5c9a8ef363..44e2399d59 100644 > --- a/builtin/log.c > +++ b/builtin/log.c > @@ -317,6 +317,10 @@ static void cmd_log_init_finish(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix, > if (rev->line_level_traverse && rev->prune_data.nr) > die(_("-L: cannot be used with pathspec")); > > + if (rev->line_level_traverse && > + (rev->diffopt.pickaxe_opts & DIFF_PICKAXE_KINDS_MASK)) > + die(_("-L does not yet support -G, -S, or --find-object")); I do not think "-L" meant to work well with these features to begin with, and I've never used -L with any other options (-L does not even work with --stat), so I personally do not mind this change. But if this is in place, would we still need [1/2]?