Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2010, #05; Sun, 21)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 23, 2010, 00:53 UTC
Message-ID: <20100223005345.GA3254@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7viq9paunm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:21:33PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > True, though most of those pathspecs for tracked files are when viewing
> > diffs. It seems more inconsistent here because "git add foo" complains
> > but "git add -u foo" does not. So I think this one is definitely worth
> > fixing.
> 
> One problem is that it would be adding a new inconsistency.
> 
> "git diff" does not complain but "git add -u" will complain if we make
> this change, but "add -u" is about updating the path that "git diff"
> reports as different.

I see. Personally I don't mind that inconsistency as much, as it is between two commands, rather than between flags within one command. But that is perhaps a subjective evaluation.

But:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Making "add -u" complain before fixing "diff-files" will have another
> issue.  It will expose a bigger inconsistency that you omitted from my
> message ;-) The pathspec "git add" without "-u" takes are processed by
> pathspec match logic of "ls-files" family, but "git add -u" uses pathspec
> match logic of "diff" family.  They have different semantics.
> 
> You can say "git add 'frotz/*.c'" but not "git add -u 'frotz/*.c'"; that
> also needs to be fixed.

That is a more worrisome inconsistency to me (and now I get what you were saying in your earlier message).

> Making "add -u" alone complain using a separate throw-away logic that we
> are sure we will have to discard when we make things consistent throughout
> the system did not sound very attractive to me.  And that is why I was
> unhappy about the solution.

OK, now I am unhappy about it, too, and I agree it should be addressed in the long term. But that is a large-ish project that will not happen immediately. What is the best thing in the meantime?

I am still tempted by the patch. Even though it trades one inconsistency for another, I find a false sense of success from "git-add" to be one of the more ugly errors (and even though "git add -u 'frotz/*.c'" would still not work with it, at least you would be informed of such).

-Peff