From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA74C77B7C for ; Fri, 12 May 2023 20:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237233AbjELUsC (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2023 16:48:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52968 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239607AbjELUsA (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2023 16:48:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com (mail-pg1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234111733 for ; Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-52caed90d17so6474750a12.0 for ; Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683924477; x=1686516477; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1WbZxr29ai5Qvrii7e1bzR2ctn5F/xYxZ+6lhKxeoHw=; b=DiolpzWpWgI4gV6Hn62AxjloAYY5qNDmPjwTDhxdPV8bdfz7hryXibBGCr2TTaUTy5 BnuOC+KxzpeHXMRqVY5n1apYaMX41uL6XGq2JEv0+UeuG04+1GlnyBjyrHvl08MZVCMT cB6/qkg8kNzP/mB+DrYoREd/ViWgtb0FtO3gOoPnn3SYwZrncCaarqA4VBfRqmvCg1ya QvW77xnBRew1B81cG5ugMyLYVVLk9HQbWMcaPQTUbKI0oCCOZClB/8qMchqN54aYExvy X1bYOLlXsywNwmORhz7gJWSTIp3vrG0lqmSolc/DVXfYbFjfdkHmpd3Qc7rDh4nyB0UY b2qA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683924477; x=1686516477; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1WbZxr29ai5Qvrii7e1bzR2ctn5F/xYxZ+6lhKxeoHw=; b=aQJkJ/mwvVdvFtuFTHrxJdx0NUUQt8Nb5ofHPJu7f2Y4M1ASPcLB1mI7oy+m6KSZo1 84Vq5kkg6jWXHz6uDO/L6wtkOs/pgYw8dugQPUMu8+8iXhlcVmNJYPsnRP0UQDHYw1E+ O94ZR0gh7A055ccbTlrk8AuKJ7rTMU4bXaZROomo2Dyw7d9MoxcMTtPHa0EbBeeXNYib HusGxYjMeSZkRq6rqhm/LWzGAccoUiXGF6mtuLrTVYk2UwrFKoj4HWIJxemQ6PfQaVIy ALLILUNsUcKQO6NjK+BAPgmdpxfRYh33GV3BMQULPMXuUpBpxHXQ5xV1P0Y3TN0NXJNp 0JeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxQDHAvIbRwHQ6k1ncz+iAYyaan26evEnvb8EIjoj/LRl8bHhIK yBlhTuZqgpw+7gZWrZ6/wlw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7v+XVsSJng+xRZsRRRHnpMqzr/pubCO1PxRM6RzoldZH3vdMFx/5oB68f84UaYCNKhfddUIA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ba8a:b0:240:f8a6:55c7 with SMTP id t10-20020a17090aba8a00b00240f8a655c7mr25525066pjr.20.1683924477518; Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (187.137.203.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.203.137.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t17-20020a639551000000b00519c3475f21sm7186059pgn.46.2023.05.12.13.47.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Junio C Hamano From: Junio C Hamano To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Sergey Organov , Matthieu Moy , "git@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Can we clarify the purpose of `git diff -s`? References: <645c5da0981c1_16961a29455@chronos.notmuch> <871qjn2i63.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <5bb24e0208dd4a8ca5f6697d578f3ae0@SAMBXP02.univ-lyon1.fr> <4f713a29-1a34-2f71-ee54-c01020be903a@univ-lyon1.fr> <87h6shif6q.fsf@osv.gnss.ru> <645ea15eca6fa_21989f294f5@chronos.notmuch> Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 13:47:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <645ea15eca6fa_21989f294f5@chronos.notmuch> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Fri, 12 May 2023 14:28:14 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Felipe Contreras writes: > So your rationale to reject a perfectly logical behavior that *everyone* agrees > with is that it might break a hypothetical patch? Everyone is an overstatement, as there are only Sergey and you, and as we all saw in public some members stated they will not engage in a discussion thread in which you were involved. In addition, at PLC I've seen people complain about how quickly a discussion that involves you becomes unproductive---they may have better sence of backward compatibility concern than you two, but they are staying silent (they are wiser than I am). > Just do `--silent` instead. I am *not* shutting the door for "--no-patch"; I am only saying that it shouldn't be done so hastily. Indeed "--silent" or "--squelch" is one of the things that I plan to suggest when we were to go with "--no-patch is no longer -s" topic. But conflating the two will delay the fix for "-s sticks unnecessarily" that is ready for this cycle. Anyway, I will be wiser and will stay out of this thread from now on, as long as you are involved.