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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439ABC433DF for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B0C2067B for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726317AbgFLOSy (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:18:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.hosts.co.uk ([85.233.160.19]:32195 "EHLO smtp.hosts.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726255AbgFLOSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:18:53 -0400 Received: from host-89-243-191-101.as13285.net ([89.243.191.101] helo=[192.168.1.37]) by smtp.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1jjkWC-000Cdo-72; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:18:52 +0100 Subject: Re: git log --name-only improvement: show old file name in rename To: Junio C Hamano , Ed Avis Cc: "git@vger.kernel.org" References: From: Philip Oakley Message-ID: <25ca66fb-82bc-7278-90e9-5e1999593068@iee.email> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:18:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-GB Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org @Ed On 12/06/2020 00:16, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ed Avis writes: > >> The git-log manual page says >> >>        --name-only >>            Show only names of changed files. >> >> But when a file has been renamed, only the new name is printed, not the >> old.  I think it would be more useful and more correct to print both >> names. Was this a concern that the manual did not clarify which name (old or new) was being reported? Philip > It is just you who thinks it would be more useful. > > Scripts written by people over the last 10 years that expect to see > new name would certainly hate to see two names start appearing > there. > > Perhaps you can use --summary at the same time?