Hi,
apart from what's stated in the subject, I think it's not logical to use "--raw" when I want to see what has changed.
"git log" shows me the log. What's the raw part about wanting to see what's changed?
If "git whatchanged" will be abandoned, please at least let me type "git log --whatchanged" in the future.
Thanks.
Regards, J
Junio C HamanoRe: Still using "git whatchanged"
jorg@ml1.net writes:
> apart from what's stated in the subject, I think it's not logical > to use "--raw" when I want to see what has changed. > > "git log" shows me the log. What's the raw part about wanting to > see what's changed?
But that is what "git whatchanged" gives, so when one is so attached to what "git whatchanged" does, "--raw" is what we cite as "compatible" option.
If you want to really see what hash changed, there are other and better options, depending on what level of details you would want to go into, ranging from --name-only to -p. My personal preference is "log --compact-summary" but I do not want to force my preference on those who want to stick to the output from "whatchanged".
Re: Still using "git whatchanged"
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, at 19:29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> jorg@ml1.net writes: > >> apart from what's stated in the subject, I think it's not logical >> to use "--raw" when I want to see what has changed. >> >> "git log" shows me the log. What's the raw part about wanting to >> see what's changed? > > But that is what "git whatchanged" gives, so when one is so attached to > what "git whatchanged" does, "--raw" is what we cite as "compatible" > option.
My point was merely that IMO "raw" is not the best name for that option. When I specify "--raw" on the command line, I usually expect the program to output similar data than without that option, but of a less refined state or kind.
In this case "--raw" means "do the same thing as without --raw (i.e. git log), but _in_addition_ tell me which files changed". That's why I think it's not the best name for that option.
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but if I were asked, I'd vote to rename "--raw" to "--whatchanged" and be... almost happy with removing "git whatchanged" (insert tear-smiley here).
Junio C HamanoRe: Still using "git whatchanged"
jorg@ml1.net writes:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, at 19:29, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> jorg@ml1.net writes: >> >>> apart from what's stated in the subject, I think it's not logical >>> to use "--raw" when I want to see what has changed. >>> >>> "git log" shows me the log. What's the raw part about wanting to >>> see what's changed? >> >> But that is what "git whatchanged" gives, so when one is so attached to >> what "git whatchanged" does, "--raw" is what we cite as "compatible" >> option. > > My point was merely that IMO "raw" is not the best name for that > option. When I specify "--raw" on the command line, I usually > expect the program to output similar data than without that > option, but of a less refined state or kind.
Sorry, but you are 20 years too late for *that* party. Once you invent a time machine and go back 20 years, you can advocate for different name(s) that may fit your personal preferences better there.
But not here and not now.
Re: Still using "git whatchanged"
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, at 23:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> jorg@ml1.net writes: >> >> My point was merely that IMO "raw" is not the best name for that >> option. When I specify "--raw" on the command line, I usually >> expect the program to output similar data than without that >> option, but of a less refined state or kind. > > Sorry, but you are 20 years too late for *that* party. Once you > invent a time machine and go back 20 years, you can advocate for > different name(s) that may fit your personal preferences better > there. > > But not here and not now.
See below:
>> I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but if I were asked...
Given the circumstances, I vote for keeping "git whatchanged".
Regards, J
Re: Still using "git whatchanged"
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 08:11, jorg@ml1.net wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, at 23:33, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>[snip] >> But not here and not now. > > See below: > >>> I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but if >>> I were asked... > > > Given the circumstances, I vote for keeping "git whatchanged".
You can see the discussion around the whatchanged deprecation as well as other things in this document:
https://git-scm.com/docs/BreakingChanges.html
> Given the circumstances,
What circumstances?
-- Kristoffer Haugsbakk
Re: Still using "git whatchanged"
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 10:08, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 08:11, jorg@ml1.net wrote: >> >> Given the circumstances, I vote for keeping "git whatchanged". > > You can see the discussion around the whatchanged deprecation as well as > other things in this document: > > https://git-scm.com/docs/BreakingChanges.html
I fail to find the discussion around the whatchanged deprecation in that document. There is mention of the deprecation, but that's all.
(But I can certainly find discussion around it if I want to, no need to send more links.)
>> Given the circumstances, > > What circumstances?
The circumstances that other changes to command line parameters (which might mitigate the loss of "whatchanged") are not up for debate.
Regards, J