> Yes, I think in general, "-v" and "-q" should work as opposites. But > that is not the case with commit, where "-v" and "-q" operate on totally > separate messages. I think that is a UX mistake, and we would not do > it that way if designing from scratch. But we're stuck with it for > historical reasons (I'd probably name "--verbose" as "--show-diff" or > something if writing it today).
Yeah, as a long-time 'git commit -v' user I never really thought about the name of the option, but when I pointed out the multiple verbose levels it struck me as a rather unfortunate name for this feature, too. Oh, well, we are stuck with it indeed. However, that doesn't mean that we have to spread this badly chosen name from options to config variables, does it? I think that if we are going to define a new config variable today, then it should be named properly, and it's better not to call it 'commit.verbose', but 'commit.showDiff' or something. Perhaps we could even define two new config variables: 'commit.showDiff' for the diff of the changes to be committed (= '-v'), and 'commit.showUnstagedDiff' for the - wait for it! - unstaged changes (= '-v -v'). Not sure about the variable names, though, because "plain" 'git diff' shows unstaged changes, while 'git diff --cached' shows staged changes. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that we can't add properly named command line option(s) and state that '-v|--verbose' is a synonym to '--show-diff' (maybe even deprecate '--verbose'), but I don't want to squeeze even more into a GSOC micro project. Gábor -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
