From: Jeff King Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:00:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] grep: --full-tree Message-ID: <20091125210034.GC18487@coredump.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: <7viqcytjic.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:52:11PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > So I think the posted patch alone without changing anything else would be > the approach to give the most benefit with the least impact to existing > users, at least for now. Yes, I meant to say in my original message but forgot to: I think --full-tree is an important first step, no matter what happens next. It gives people a way to do what they want without typing the right number of ".."s, and it opens up --no-full-tree if the default changes later. But I do worry about it being a command-line option. You are asking the user to remember to type --full-tree every time. I can't count the number of times I have been in a subdirectory and done "git grep foo", spent some time analyzing and doing something with the results, only for my palm to hit my forehead when I realize that I was missing half of the results I wanted. In other words, I not only have to remember to use the option, but when I forget, I may get punished very annoyingly by results which are subtly different from what I want. So I am in favor of taking it further, but even if we do, the command-line option is the right thing to be doing _now_. > "git grep -e frotz .." will work in your "from linux/subproject/t look for > everywhere in linux/subproject", but if "/t" part were much longer and > variable (iow you need to chdir around inside linux/subproject to scratch > your itch) compared to "linux/subproject" part that is much shorter and > static (to your work), it may make sense to give us a mode to specify > pathspec from the top of the tree. > > $ cd linux/subproject > $ cd foo > $ cd bar > $ cd baz > $ git grep --absolute-pathspec -e frotz -- linux/subproject > > As "git grep" never takes absolute paths, we _might_ be able to also do > > $ git grep -e frotz -- /linux/subproject > > to achieve the same. Certainly I think that would be an improvement. But again, it suffers from the "you must remember to do this" as above. I really want "git grep" to Do What I Mean. I have to wonder: is "git grep" really plumbing or porcelain? It is really just a wrapper for git ls-files | xargs grep Do people actually use it in their scripts? Should they be? -Peff