Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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). Right. At some point, we may want to introduce a porcelain version of "git ls-files", but we shouldn't change its default behavior. > The archive behavior surprised me, and I would think it should be full-tree > by default. But it is sort of plumbing-ish, in that people have probably > scripted around and people _don't_ tend to create archives a lot. Right. There are probably more calls to "git archive" in cron jobs and web interface than directly from the command-line. > That leaves clean. I would say from a consistency standpoint that it > should go full-tree to match the other commands. But it is one of the > most destructive commands, and making it full-tree makes it easier to > accidentally delete, instead of accidentally fail to delete. Agreed. That would be really bad surprise for an experience user to upgrade Git, type "git clean -fdx" from a subdirectory, and to notice the new behavior afterwards ;-). > So depending on your view of the above, it may just be "add -u/-A" and > "grep" that are worth switching. Agreed. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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