Mihir Mehta <mi...@cs.utexas.edu> writes: > Thanks, Junio. Instead of removing that part of the patch, I opted to > expand it to make it a little clearer (in my opinion) than it was > before. Let me know if this works.
I am mildly negative on that change. "Omitting both would give an empty diff" would be understandable to anybody who understands that an omitted end of dot-dot is substituted with HEAD *and* thinks what range HEAD..HEAD means, so it is just an additional noise to them, and to those who do not want to waste time on thinking, it is a statement that reads as if "it will be an error" without saying why it is an error. So overall, it seems, at least to me, that the additional text adds negative value. So, I dunno.
