Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: git-log: clarify --follow options

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 06:31:15 +0900

Tamir Duberstein <[email-masked]> writes:

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: git-log: clarify --follow options

The second ':' feels quite funny.  I would have expected

    doc: clarify "--follow" and log.follow for "git log"

or something like that.

> The --no-follow option was added by aebbcf5797 (diff: accept --no-follow
> option, 2012-09-21), but git-log(1) only documents the positive --follow
> form.

OK.  Usually we document

	--no-foo::
	--foo::
		describe '--foo' and '--no-foo' here ...

but we do not do so here, which is a good thng to fix.

> Document --no-follow alongside --follow. While here, describe --follow
> as limited to a single pathspec, rather than a single file, and mention
> the override in the log.follow documentation.

"Single file" is more accurate than "single pathspec", isn't it?

It is not like "git log --follow builtin" follows only changes to
the paths for builtin commands across "builtin-foo.c ->
builtin/foo.c" transition that happened at 81b50f3c (Move
'builtin-*' into a 'builtin/' subdirectory, 2010-02-22).

And the way the machinery for this checkbox feature works is to notice
when the file it was given disappears and then find the other file
that the file we have been following came from, and start following
that old file.