Re: [PATCH 2/2] read-tree: at least one tree-ish argument is required

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 18, 2009, 19:32 UTC
Message-ID: <7voclwxemf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <200912182004.25520.j.sixt@viscovery.net>

Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:

> Sorry to drag you into this discussion, but I felt this change is
> maint-worthy (because the behavior is not only risky, but dangerous).
>
> -- Hannes

In short, that is where we differ, as I don't think it is dangerous at all in the "maint-worthy" sense.

"read-tree" without -m is to "populate the index from emptiness with given trees". Unless you are hit by the bug in the auto-correction (whose fix was maint-worthy), nobody would say read-tree without parameter and expect that it wouldn't touch the index.

Sure, it will empty the index, so it is dangerous in the same sense that "reset --hard" is dangerous because it will wipe all your local changes, or "rm -rf it" will remove everything underneath it. But these are all features that are "dangerous if you didn't mean to do so but wanted to do something else."

Removal of such features might turn out to be maint-worthy but

    Previously, it was possible to run read-tree without any arguments,
    whereupon it purged the index!

doesn't justify it well enough.