On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:24 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "pcasaretto via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: pcasaretto <paulo.casaretto@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Casaretto <paulo.casaretto@xxxxxxxxxxx> Same issue with name here. > I am not sure if "lexicographic order" fits well in the context of > "git cmd -h" that spews out many many options, shown with related > options together in groups. I find it aggressively annoying to show > left/right-only far apart. A user unfamiliar with the command would > look at the list, find "left-only" sitting in the list alone, and > waste time and break concentration wondering what in the first range > is so special to deserve such an option, until they see "right-only" > further down to realize that they are symmetric. > > I'd rather not to see this "lexicographic" change done, but others > may have better justification (note: "for better organization and > readability" I just disagreed is a good justification) that may make > me change my mind. > > What I would change, if there is something suboptimal in the current > output from "git range-diff -h" that deserves improvement, is the > lack of the grouping header before the options for range-diff > operation (i.e. creation-factor to left/right-only, before the next > "diff output" group begins). > > Thanks. I do like lexicographic ordering for unrelated options, but I prefer options to be grouped by intent/use first, then by lexicographic ordering. And here, not only are--left-only & --right-only related as Junio points out, to me --diff-merges and --remerge-diff are a similar grouping that belong together. So, my $0.02 is that I'd lean towards calling both changes in the patch a reduction in organization rather than an improvement.
