> Le 10 sept. 2020 à 00:50, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> So, no. I am not enthused to see this change. > > A more relevant question to ask you is what the motivation behind > this change is. > > If it is an apparent "inconsistency" that the plumbing command in > question takes an explicit command line option but ignores user > configuration, then we can stop there---I think we would want to > keep it that way. Yes, in part this (and as I said in my previous email, to bring the code in line with 'gitsubmodules(7)'). > But if it is because "I use this command interactively quite often, > and I find it inconvenient because I need to type the long command > line option", we may want to step back and understand why you need > to run the low level plumbing command in your interactive use case. > Perhaps most, but not quite all, of your need, whatever it is, is > already satisfied by higher level commands (like "status"?) and what > we need is to enrich these end-user facing higher level commands to > fill the "gap" to satisfy the need in your use case. Yes, I use ls-files interactively quite often. For example, I know a source file is named 'such_and_such' but I don't remember where in the directory hierarchy of the project it is located, so `git ls-files **/such_and_such` is the quickest way to find it (and I have to then add '--recurse-submodules' when I get no results, remember that the file in in a submodule, and rerun the command). So I use it mostly as a Git-aware find(1) replacement.
