Ed Maste <emaste@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 13:21, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> "This is similar to ls" is not all that important, especially if we
>> then need to say how different from "ls" ours is. The log message
>> that describes why we needed to move away from "ls" is a good place
>> to say what aspect of "ls" was unsuitable.
>
> Ok, I'm also happy if it goes in with no comment; the reason I added
> it is I could foresee someone coming along in a few years, thinking
> this is just a strange local implementation of ls, and changing it.
> But, perhaps we can assume that any such person would check the
> history before doing so and the comment is not needed.
>
>> If we _were_ to add an in-code comment, we may want to say something
>> like
>>
>> # Do not replace this with "cd "$1" && ls", as FreeBSD "ls"
>> # enables "-A" when run by root without being told, and ends
>> # up including ".git" etc. in its output.
>>
>> to warn future developers against improving and/or cleaning up.
>
> Indeed, that is more direct, although it's not just FreeBSD ls; this
> came from 4.2BSD and is probably common to most/all non-GNU ls
> implementations. In particular, macOS behaves the same way. (Also, the
> replacement would be even simpler, just "ls $1".)
Good piece of info to include. Final try for the day from me:
# Do not replace this with 'ls "$1"', as "ls" with BSD-lineage
# enables "-A" by default for root and ends up ...
