Re: [PATCH] grep: --full-tree

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:41:33PM -0500, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
> 
>>> I agree with all of this as far as changing the default goes. But the
>>> point of my earlier messages was that I don't think there _is_ one sane
>>> default. I really do want it different per-project. And that means a
>>> configuration option.
>> Since grep is so useful, both interactively and scripted, outside of
>> git, this is a pretty convincing argument that git-grep, and all
>> other git commands with configurable behavior or defaults that change
>> over time, need a both a scripting form and an interactive form.
> 
> It is tempting to have scripts simply set a GIT_VANILLA environment
> variable to ignore config options. But I think it is not quite so
> simple. As a script, if I am calling "git log", do I want it to respect
> the user's colorization config or not? It depends on _how_ I am calling
> it. Is the output to be shown to the user, or am I going to process it
> myself?
> 
> Similarly, why is the script calling "git grep"? If it is because the
> script is a convenience wrapper (e.g., let's say to colorize the output
> in a particular way), then it probably wants to respect my configured
> choice of which files to grep. But if the script is just using "git
> grep" to get data to perform some other calculation, then it probably
> does care deeply about which set of files to grep.
> 
> So I think you have situations where scripts do want to invoke the
> porcelain version of a command versus the plumbing. But much harder, you
> have ones where they want to respect some options but not others.