Re: "git add -u" broken in git 1.7.4?

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Feb 10, 2011, 18:00 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqpqqzahwv.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20110209234621.GA12575@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> I don't think it's worth moving ls-files/ls-tree. They're plumbing that
> people don't use frequently. So the cost of moving them is high (because
> we are breaking something meant to be scriptable) and the benefit is low
> (because users don't type them a lot).

Right. At some point, we may want to introduce a porcelain version of "git ls-files", but we shouldn't change its default behavior.

> The archive behavior surprised me, and I would think it should be full-tree
> by default. But it is sort of plumbing-ish, in that people have probably
> scripted around and people _don't_ tend to create archives a lot.

Right. There are probably more calls to "git archive" in cron jobs and web interface than directly from the command-line.

> That leaves clean. I would say from a consistency standpoint that it
> should go full-tree to match the other commands. But it is one of the
> most destructive commands, and making it full-tree makes it easier to
> accidentally delete, instead of accidentally fail to delete.

Agreed. That would be really bad surprise for an experience user to upgrade Git, type "git clean -fdx" from a subdirectory, and to notice the new behavior afterwards ;-).

> So depending on your view of the above, it may just be "add -u/-A" and
> "grep" that are worth switching.

Agreed.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/