Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2023, #01; Mon, 2)

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 01:20:43 -0700

Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Sergey Organov <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>>> I believe I've addressed this in details in my reply here:
>>> <[email-masked]>, and got no further objections from you
>>> since then, so I figure I'd ask to finally let the patch in.
>>
>> You need to know that no response does not mean no objection.  You
>> repeated why the less useful combination is what you want, but that
>> does not mean the combination deserves to squat on short-and-sweet
>> 'd' and prevent others from coming up with a better use for it.
>
> Yep, but I've asked what's better use for -d than "get me diff"? Do you
> really have an idea?

The primary point is to leave it open for future developers.

If I have to pick a candidate for "get me diff" that is the most
useful among those currently are available, it is "give patches to
all single-parent commit, and show tricky conflict resolution part
only for merge commits".  Before "--remerge-diff" was invented, my
answer would have been "give patches to all single-parent commit,
and show combined diff in the compact form for merge commits", aka
"git log --cc".  Even though we did not know if a better output
presentation for merge commits would be coming, we did not let it
squat on any short-and-sweet single letter synonym.