On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 03:21:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 1. Deprecate the current behavior in the documentation and release > > notes, encouraging people who want literal matching to use > > --literal-pathspecs or the ":(literal)" magic. AFAICT we've > > supported these since at least 2013 for this command, so it should > > be safe to use unconditionally. > > > > 2. Add a new option, "--use-pathspecs" or similar, that switches the > > matching code to use match_pathspec(). That lets people use the new > > feature immediately if they want to. > > > > 3. When --use-pathspecs is not in use, warn to stderr about any > > wildcard characters in the input. That reinforces the deprecation > > notice in (1) and is likely to get more people's attention. > > Hmph, if we are serious about deprecation and migration, I would > image that in stage #1, we should do this check already. When > "--literal-pathspecs" is NOT in use, if a pathspec would change its > meaning if not taken literally (e.g. has glob letters, begins with > :-magic introducer, etc.), we warn and do so from the very beginning > of the migration process. Yeah, sorry, I meant these three steps to all happen at once. Technically we don't need step (2) in there for the deprecation, but I think it lets people adjust to the new world order as their solution to avoid the warning (though I guess literal-pathspecs would also prevent the warning; we wouldn't be looking for "*" in the input so much as checking whether the parsed pathspec contains a wildcard). > > 4. After several releases, flip the default to --use-pathspecs, > > leaving --no-use-pathspecs as an escape hatch for people who still > > haven't switched their scripts. > > Wouldn't --literal-pathspecs be the accepted escape hatch that will > always be accepted, even after --use-pathspecs becomes a no-op? Hmm, I guess so. That wouldn't restore the behavior as it is _now_, but the current behavior is sort of pointless. It treats pathspec magic as special, but not globs. I doubt anybody actually wants that; they'd either want pathspecs or literal paths. -Peff
