Git developers,
Thanks for the wonderful tool. I still use `git whatchanged` I realize that `git log --raw` is the same output, but it doesn't have the same mnemonic resonance as `git whatchanged`. So here is my small vote to keep the feature. Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway
Junio C HamanoRe: git whatchanged
Jesse Hathaway <jesse@mbuki-mvuki.org> writes:
> Git developers, > > Thanks for the wonderful tool. I still use `git whatchanged` I realize > that `git log --raw` is the same output, but it doesn't have the same > mnemonic resonance as `git whatchanged`.
The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings. Why not learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status", which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?
Re: git whatchanged
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 21:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:a
> The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings. Why not > learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of > the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status",
* --stat
Probably.
> which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?
-- Kristoffer Haugsbakk
Junio C HamanoRe: git whatchanged
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, at 21:56, Junio C Hamano wrote:a >> The "raw" output spews meaningless hexadecimal strings. Why not >> learn to use a more meaningful option, now you are switching out of >> the command that is going away anyway, perhaps like "--status", > > * --stat > > Probably.
Indeed. Thanks for correcting me. These days I use --compact-summary instead myself, though ;-)
> >> which lets you see the extent of damage to each path, for example?