Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> $ git grep 'git[ -]add' t/ | wc -l
>> 1540
>> $ git grep 'git[ -]update-index --add' t/ | wc -l
>> 269
>> $ git grep 'git[ -]update-index --add' v1.6.0 t/ | wc -l
>> 251
>> $ git grep 'git[ -]add' v1.6.0 t/ | wc -l
>> 705
>
> Stop being silly.
>
> Have you actually looked at these usage? Some of them are genuinely
> testing if "git add" works correctly, so it is out of the scope of this
> discussion, but others that could be "git update-index" are feeding the
> paths known to the script to exist (and we want 'git add' to error out
> if that is not the case).
I'm sorry if I sound silly, that was totally not the point. I also
admit that I did not look at the usages at all. I merely wanted to
point out that the understanding in the git community *itself* has
evolved to use git-add instead of git update-index --add in its own
scripting. Admittedly the statistics are even more striking than I
could possibly hope for.
So I am challenging the notion that git-add is not recommended for use
in scripts, which is how I understood your parenthetical remark
} If somebody is writing a script using "git add" (which is not recommended
} to begin with)
We're no longer following that advice ourselves, how can we expect users
to adhere to it?
> More generally, scripts in t/ directories are "scripts", but it is totally
> different from the kind of "user facing script that behaves as if it is a
> complete command, taking its own command line arguments, passing them
> through to the underlying plumbing commands".
I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make here. Maybe
my mental model of the plumbing/porcelain separation (which is mostly
about interface stability) is wrong?
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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