Re: [PATCH 1/3] ls-tree: make <tree-ish> optional

> On 07/06/2018 01:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>>> I'd prefer *not* to have such a DWIM in a command like ls-tree, aka
>>>> plumbing commands, where predictability is worth 1000 times more
>>>> than ease of typing.
>>>
>>> Fair enough.  However, what if no <tree-ish> or <path> are specified,
>>> though -- would you be okay with the HEAD being assumed instead of
>>> erroring out in that case?
>> 
>> If we wrote ls-tree to do so 12 years ago, then I wouldn't have
>> opposed.  Changing the behaviour now?  Not so sure if it is worth
>> having to worry about updating the code, docs and making sure we
>> spot all the possible typoes.
>> 
>
> I have to say, as a first time contributor, reading this is extremely
> discouraging. I'm not being told the patch can be improved, or that I've
> made some error that should be corrected. I'm being told that the entire
> idea of the patch is unwanted, that it doesn't have a place in a mature
> project like git, that only bug fixes and security issues should be
> accepted.