jorg@xxxxxxx writes: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, at 19:29, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> jorg@xxxxxxx writes: >> >>> apart from what's stated in the subject, I think it's not logical >>> to use "--raw" when I want to see what has changed. >>> >>> "git log" shows me the log. What's the raw part about wanting to >>> see what's changed? >> >> But that is what "git whatchanged" gives, so when one is so attached to >> what "git whatchanged" does, "--raw" is what we cite as "compatible" >> option. > > My point was merely that IMO "raw" is not the best name for that > option. When I specify "--raw" on the command line, I usually > expect the program to output similar data than without that > option, but of a less refined state or kind. Sorry, but you are 20 years too late for *that* party. Once you invent a time machine and go back 20 years, you can advocate for different name(s) that may fit your personal preferences better there. But not here and not now.
