Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> So here's an RFC patch, and I'm quoting the above part of my thinking
> because it's what the patch does, but it turns out that it's probably not
> what we want, and I suspect the "." behavior (as opposed to "no filtering
> at all") is actually better.
> ...
>
> Comments?
1. I think some commands limit their operands to cwd and some work
on the whole tree when given no pathspec. I think the "no
positive? then let's give you everything except these you
excluded" should base the definition of "everything" to that.
IOW, "cd t && git grep -e foo" shows everything in t/ directory,
so the default you would add would be "." for "grep"; "cd t &&
git diff HEAD~100 HEAD" would show everything, so you would give
":(top)." for "diff".
2. I am not sure what ctype.c change is about. Care to elaborate?
3. I think our recent trend is to wean ourselves away from "an
empty element in pathspec means all paths match", and I think we
even have accepted a patch to emit a warning. Doesn't the
warning trigger for the new code below?
> - if (nr_exclude == n)
> - die(_("There is nothing to exclude from by :(exclude) patterns.\n"
> - "Perhaps you forgot to add either ':/' or '.' ?"));
> -
> + /*
> + * If everything is an exclude pattern, add one positive pattern
> + * that matches everyting. We allocated an extra one for this.
> + */
> + if (nr_exclude == n) {
> + init_pathspec_item(item + n, 0, "", 0, "");
> + pathspec->nr++;
> + }
>
> if (pathspec->magic & PATHSPEC_MAXDEPTH) {
> if (flags & PATHSPEC_KEEP_ORDER)