Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Would it be possible to make this conditional on cwd not being at the
> toplevel (the case where "git add -u :/" and "git add -u ." have
> different behavior)? E.g.,
>
> static const char *here[2] = { ".", NULL };
> if (prefix)
>
Duy Nguyen writes:
> What about 'grep' and 'clean'? I think at least 'clean' should go
> tree-wide default too. I don't mind grep go the same way either but I
> think people voiced preference in current behavior..
I think the major argument for "git grep" to be the way it is is
because people ex
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Most git commands that can be used with our without a filepattern are
> tree-wide by default, the filepattern being used to restrict their scope.
> A few exceptions are: 'git grep', 'git clean', 'git add -u' and 'git add -A'.
>
> The inconsist
Hi,
Matthieu Moy wrote:
> The inconsistancy of 'git add -u' and 'git add -A' are particularly
> problematic since other 'git add' subcommands (namely 'git add -p' and
> 'git add -e') are tree-wide by default.
>
> Flipping the default now is unacceptable, so this patch starts training
> users to t
- Ursprungligt meddelande -
> > git diff
> > #looks good
> > git add -u
>
> That's indeed the kind of mistake I'd like to avoid. In your example,
> "git diff" is tree-wide, and "git add -u" is limited to ., so in
> general
> "git add -u" won't stage the same thing as "git diff" just sho
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Wouldn't we achieve the same consistency across modes of
> "add" if we made them relative to the current directory?
As other people already said, it would be nice to have consistency
accross most if not all commands. AFAICT, the only exceptions to
"tree-wide by default,
Piotr Krukowiecki writes:
> Another issue is usability. Can we definitely say which is better: add
> all changes from current subdir, or add all changes from whole tree? I
> don't know.
Hard to tell, depending on users, use-case, ...
But the good news is: whatever option is chosen, the other on
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Matthieu Moy writes:
>
>> Most git commands that can be used with our without a filepattern are
>> tree-wide by default, the filepattern being used to restrict their scope.
>> A few exceptions are: 'git grep', 'git clean', 'git add -u' and
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Most git commands that can be used with our without a filepattern are
> tree-wide by default, the filepattern being used to restrict their scope.
> A few exceptions are: 'git grep', 'git clean', 'git add -u' and 'git add -A'.
>
> The inconsistancy of 'git add -u' and 'git a
Robin Rosenberg writes:
> git add -u without filepattern is, I believe very common, so no noisy
> output there please.
What are you exactly suggesting? That we keep the inconsistant semantics
of "git add -u" or "git add -A"? Or another migration plan?
> git diff
> #looks good
> git add -u
That
- Ursprungligt meddelande -
> Most git commands that can be used with our without a filepattern are
> tree-wide by default, the filepattern being used to restrict their
> scope.
> A few exceptions are: 'git grep', 'git clean', 'git add -u' and 'git
> add -A'.
>
> The inconsistancy of 'gi
Most git commands that can be used with our without a filepattern are
tree-wide by default, the filepattern being used to restrict their scope.
A few exceptions are: 'git grep', 'git clean', 'git add -u' and 'git add -A'.
The inconsistancy of 'git add -u' and 'git add -A' are particularly
problema
12 matches
Mail list logo
