From: Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:44:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 01/12] commit-tree: allow indirect tree references
Message-ID: <ca433831003151744j80c5421n9cd1f310687dace3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v634z7uke.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 'git commit-tree' was the last remaining built-in to accept a <tree> but
>> not a <tree-ish> (an indirect tree reference through a commit or tag
>> object.)
>
> Historically we deliberately chose not to DWIM things down to tree for
> this plumbing command to catch mistakes by Porcelain scripts
> (e.g. arguments given in wrong order---the order of commit-tree's
> arguments are, eh, unintuitive).
>
> I do not think that matters much anymore---I do not think this patch
> is unsafe.

I thought about that, but upon investigation, the _only_ command that
doesn't DWIM with respect to object types (<tree> or <commit>) is
commit-tree.  So, I thought it might make sense to treat this like all
the other commands.  On the other hand, it may be a good idea to keep
this special for safety.  If so, then I would just amend the
documentation to note that it does not automatically dereference
commit or tag objects.