On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:24:55AM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > > 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). > > No we should not, but we should add --full-tree to > ls-files/ls-tree/archive. I'd love "ls-files --full-tree > '*somefile*'". ls-tree already has --full-tree (and --full-name, which just gives full pathnames but still restricts output to files in the current directory). ls-files. ls-files has --full-name, but AFAIK needs a matching --full-tree. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html