Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> I am getting the impression that to save typing, you would want to
> make "--index --worktree" the default (i.e. among the above, only
> --no-index and --no-worktree need to be spelled explicitly), but
> there is one glitch. Updating from the index must be spelled
> explicitly with "--no-index --worktree".
And after getting reminded by Elijah, the default pair is
<--no-index, --worktree>.
> So perhaps the defaulting rule for the "--index" option must become
> a bit more tricky. Perhaps the rules are:
>
> * --worktree is the default; --no-worktree can be given from the
> command line to countermand it, and --worktree can be given from
> the command line to be more explicit.
>
> * when --source <tree> is given from the command line, --index is
> the default, and --no-index can be given to countermand it.
Correction.
* when --source <tree> is given, --no-index is the default, but
--index can be given to countermand it.
>
> * when --source <tree> is not given from the command line,
> --no-index is the only sensible choice. It can be given from the
> command line to be more explicit, but giving --index to
> countermand the --no-index default would be an error, as updating
> the index, whether the same update also goes to the working tree,
> must come from a --source <tree>.
This is still correct.
