Subject: Re: so/diff-merges-more (was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2023, #01; Thu, 2))

From: Sergey Organov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:56:07 +0300

Glen Choo <[email-masked]> writes:

> Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> I already agreed long ago that to be on the safe side we shouldn't
>> simply change -m nowadays, and addressed that concern by putting -m
>> behavior change under configuration option in the current series. So
>> what's the reason of rejection?
>
> Before we start talking in circles again, I think the responses
> elsewhere in the thread still accurately capture mine and Junio's
> views, e.g.:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email-masked]/

There were no any response from you to my recent very direct question
(that Junio did somewhat address), but what I figured from your and
Junio explanation so far looks like:

1. The fact that -m does not imply -p is a mistake. There is no any
   reasons this exact behavior could be useful. As such, it does not
   make sense to support this exact behavior in --diff-merges. So the
   reject of --diff-merges=[no-]hide.

2. This mistake is too dangerous to fix due to subtle compatibility
   problems, so we can't just fix -m behavior. Thus the reject of my
   earlier patch "let -m imply -p".

3. Moving behavior change under option is not worth it, as nobody
   presumably needs this fixed -m behavior anyway (at least among 2
   persons that are actually opposing the changes). So the reject
   of "add diffMerges-m-imply-p configuration option" patch.

4. Staring in the face inconsistency between -m and the rest
   of short diff-merge options is not significant enough to reconsider
   any of the above rejects.

Did I outline your positions correctly and to the full extent? Anything
else I forgot?

I want to make sure I got it exactly right, as I'd still like to tweak
my proposals, and I'd like to avoid the troubles I got into as much as
possible.

Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov