Re: checkout extra files
- From
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
- Date
- Sep 4, 2012, 22:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <53AE674D81CD4B9CB013C1DE846240B2@PhilipOakley>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vobll8qn2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:44 PM
Show 32 quoted lines
> Angelo Borsotti <angelo.borsotti@gmail.com> writes: > >> The issue here is that the paths must denote filenames that are >> present in the index >> or tree-ish, so, wildcards are misleading since they would instead be >> interpreted >> with respect to the working directory. > > When you are talking to a shell (and you almost never directly talk > to Git), wildcards are always interpreted with respect to the > working directory by the shell. And that is not specific to Git. > >> A possible way to make this clear is to warn the user to quote paths >> that contain >> wildcards. Something like, e.g.: >> >> "Note that <paths> that contain wildcards must be quoted in order >> to >> denote files that >> belong to the index or <tree-ish>. Otherwise, they are interpreted >> by the shell with >> respect to the current directory, with a result that may depend on >> the shell." > > Perhaps, if you drop ", with a result..." from that sentence. > > Even though that description is a bit too much on the side of "shell > primer" than "git documentation" for my taste, I could see it may > help some people, so I wouldn't reject such a phrasing out of hand. > > Let's see what others feel. >
A comment about the need to quote wild cards would certainly be of advantage to many Windows users who won't have used a shell in that way before.
Plus I suspect that a large fraction of basic unix/linux users will have never really considered the difference between shell expansion and git expansion in this case where there are two diifferent 'file systems', as demonstrated by the initial query.