On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:23 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, 6 June 2011, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > > So what you suggest would make > > > > $ git diff NEXT WTREE > > > > behave differently from > > > > $ git diff > > > > and > > > > $ git diff HEAD NEXT > > > > behave differently from > > > > $ git diff --cached > > > > Do you really think that it is good idea? > > I do not know if Michael is suggesting to make it different, but if the > difference is an improvement, it may be a good thing. Being different from > the current behaviour should not be a basis for automatic rejection --- > otherwise we won't make any progress. > > I just don't know what the plans by advocates of this NEXT/WTREE are for > conflicted cases [*1*] to tell how they want to make the user experience, so I > cannot even tell if they want something different, let alone to judge if > the proposed difference is an improvement. > > [Footnote] > > *1* There may be other equally important corner cases, but let's tackle > one simple and obvious thing first to see where this goes. Given the history of the thread including this: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/172220 I'd prefer not introducing any more global pseudo-refs.... -- -Drew Northup ________________________________________________ "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59 -- 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