Joshua Nelson <jyn514@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 07/06/2018 01:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> 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. >> > > I have to say, as a first time contributor, reading this is extremely > discouraging. I'm not being told the patch can be improved, or that I've > made some error that should be corrected. I'm being told that the entire > idea of the patch is unwanted, that it doesn't have a place in a mature > project like git, that only bug fixes and security issues should be > accepted. ... on plumbing commands like ls-tree, where keeping the interface stable is much more important than making it easier to "type". Rules for porcelain commands are entirely different.
