Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> But "update" should mean "replace git add -u with git add -u .", which >> is the portable way to do the same. >> >>> so the introduction of the configuration becomes a flag-day event. >>> Hmph... >> >> The introduction of the config variable is a non-event if you already >> use the portable . notation. > > I think you got this part wrong. Until now, there was no "portability" to > worry about when using "git add -u". "git add -u" used to be _guaranteed_ > to be relative to the cwd, with or without ".". Our update will _break_ > that expectation and suddenly make "." "the portable notation". > > In other words, it is far from a non-event. There is a "if" in my sentence, and I do claim that if you verify the condition behind the "if", it is a non-event. I did not claim that the whole change was a non-event, just that the introduction of a config variable was. > We still have to say "We are sorry, we will be breaking your scripts. > Please add an extra dot at the end". Absolutely. My claim is just that adding the extra dot is the way to fix script wrt the future change, or at least a better way than relying on a config variable. -- 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