# [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag 4 messages from 2020-12-20 to 2020-12-23. Participants: Érico Rolim, Đoàn Trần Công Danh, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/54860 ## Érico Rolim, 2020-12-20 04:23 Subject: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAFDeuWOit1vKUT38Uvbj2wAsb5CBo59p2h%3DSE6FGNb6XGOGG-w%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hi! When using the command git log --patch --name-status It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean that I get the same output as simply running git log --name-status It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes themselves, at the same time. Happy holidays, Érico ``` ## Đoàn Trần Công Danh, 2020-12-21 13:16 Subject: Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/X%2BCgJCj7%2FtadldUg%40danh.dev In-Reply-To: ``` On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote: > Hi! > > When using the command > > git log --patch --name-status > > It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean > that I get the same output as simply running > > git log --name-status > > It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would > allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes > themselves, at the same time. I'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not, however, the Documentation says something about "Show only"... Anyway, --patch-with-raw provides more information than --patch --name-status combined. I guess it's too much information? -- Danh ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2020-12-21 19:09 Subject: Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq5z4vm0vt.fsf%40gitster.c.googlers.com In-Reply-To: ``` Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes: > On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote: >> Hi! >> >> When using the command >> >> git log --patch --name-status >> >> It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean >> that I get the same output as simply running >> >> git log --name-status >> >> It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would >> allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes >> themselves, at the same time. > > I'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not, > however, the Documentation says something about "Show only"... Perhaps the documentation would need to be clarified? I suspect this is not very useful combination [*1*] and if this were years ago, I would suggest making the command line error out, instead of silently ignore one and keep the other one in effect. [Footnote] *1* "--patch --stat --summmary" was designed as the standard "both a summary as well as the changes". ``` ## Đoàn Trần Công Danh, 2020-12-23 23:54 Subject: Re: [BUG] In git-log, --name-status flag overrides the --patch flag Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/X%2BPY0%2FyTwrXjVRvb%40danh.dev In-Reply-To: ``` On 2020-12-21 11:09:58-0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Đoàn Trần Công Danh writes: > > > On 2020-12-20 01:23:05-0300, Érico Rolim wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> When using the command > >> > >> git log --patch --name-status > >> > >> It seems the name-status flag somehow overrides the patch flag, by which I mean > >> that I get the same output as simply running > >> > >> git log --name-status > >> > >> It would be nice for the combination of these two flags to work, as it would > >> allow one to view both a summary of changed files as well as the changes > >> themselves, at the same time. > > > > I'm not arguing if this your expectation is make sense or not, > > however, the Documentation says something about "Show only"... > > Perhaps the documentation would need to be clarified? Honestly, I think documentation is fine, "Show only"... should mean only. > > I suspect > this is not very useful combination [*1*] and if this were years > ago, I would suggest making the command line error out, instead of > silently ignore one and keep the other one in effect. Although, I don't have strong opinion on this combination, I would say yes, and we should error out for other combination like --name-status --patch too. And Érico, in a reply to me, said he would prefer seeing an error instead of silencely discard one option. I'll look into the implementation in this weekend. > > > [Footnote] > > *1* "--patch --stat --summmary" was designed as the standard "both a > summary as well as the changes". -- Danh ```