Re: [PATCH] t4013: add expected failure for "log --patch --no-patch"

Sergey Organov [off-list ref] writes:

[-s meaning "silent" at that time? If so, making --no-patch a synonym for
"silent", and then documenting -s a synonym for --no-patch sounds like
quite a twitch.]

I thought it stood for "squelch", but it turns out that it was
introduced by f4f21ce3 (git-diff-tree: clean up output, 2005-05-06),
as a "silent" mode, way before anything else in the thread has
happened.

In Git v1.8.4, "--no-patch" was added as a synonym for "-s", and
ever since we documented that they are equivalents.

Anyway, this seems pretty irrelevant to the test case. Even
if we spell --no-patch as -s,

 git diff -s --raw HEAD^ HEAD

should produce what? To me it should be the same as

 git diff --raw HEAD^ HEAD

as -s turns off everything, and then --raw is turned on.

Ah, yeah, I missed that part of your sample command.  It does seem
quite puzzling, and the bad (or good?) part of the story is that my
fresh build of v1.8.4 behaves exactly the same way.  And with "-s"
we can try versions before v1.8.4 (the only change that version made
was to introduce "--no-patch" as its synonym).  It seems it behaved
that way at least back to v1.5.3 (which happens to be the oldest
version I consider worth comparing with more modern versions).

Notice that

 git diff -s --patch

does produce the patch output, whereas

 git diff -s --raw
 git diff -s --stat

produce none.

Yes, you're right.

Sounds like nonsense.

Sounds like a bug to me.  I wonder how it came about.  Did we forget
to add support of the equivalent of what "-s --patch" does, when we
added "--raw" and "--stat", perhaps?

I'm afraid the solution I'd come up with won't be welcomed. If I'd start
to "fix" it, it'd be likely set of independent options:

 --patch --no-patch
 --raw   --no-raw
 --stat  --no-stat

and then

 -s being just a shortcut for "--no-raw --no-patch --no-stat"

If I were writing Git from scratch without any existing users, that
would be how I would design it (modulo that I would make sure we
have some mechanism to make it easier for developers who may add
a new output <format> to ensure that "-s" also implies "--no-<format>"
for the new <format> they are adding to the mix).

The fact that this wasn't brought up until now may mean that nobody
would notice if we redefined the definition of "--no-patch" to
behave that way, as long as "-s" keeps its original meaning.  

I dunno.

Thanks.