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. In this case "--raw" means "do the same thing as without --raw (i.e. git log), but _in_addition_ tell me which files changed". That's why I think it's not the best name for that option. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but if I were asked, I'd vote to rename "--raw" to "--whatchanged" and be... almost happy with removing "git whatchanged" (insert tear-smiley here).
