Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I'd prefer *not* to have such a DWIM in a command like ls-tree, aka >> plumbing commands, where predictability is worth 1000 times more >> than ease of typing. > > Fair enough. However, what if no <tree-ish> or <path> are specified, > though -- would you be okay with the HEAD being assumed instead of > erroring out in that case? If we wrote ls-tree to do so 12 years ago, then I wouldn't have opposed. Changing the behaviour now? Not so sure if it is worth having to worry about updating the code, docs and making sure we spot all the possible typoes.
