Hello. Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: |Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> writes: |> I think this behaviour contradicts the manual which strongly links |> ls-tree to ls(1): | |Patches to the documentation is very much welcomed.
The below could serve this purpose. |Somewhere the similarity must end, and actually it ends a lot |earlier, as "/bin/ls" takes exact paths while "ls-tree" (or any |other Git command for that matter) takes a pathspec pattern, |and not having a path that matches the pathspec pattern is not |an error condition. I was just surprised to see nothing and get no feedback at all. Ciao! --steffen
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt index dbc91f9..8ebeced 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt @@ -33,6 +33,10 @@ in the current working directory. Note that: However, the current working directory can be ignored by passing --full-tree option. + - the behaviour is different to that of "/bin/ls" in sofar as non-existing + '<path>' arguments are silently ignored and not reflected in the exit + status code. + OPTIONS ------- <tree-ish>::