Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > You seem to be quoting the thread over and over, but what you are > quoting is somewhat different from the concluding part of what I > said, which was: >> If I have to guess, I think the reason is because pre-commit >> automation is expected to be some sort of mechanical change and >> not part of the actual work that the end-user produced, it would >> become easier to perform the "final review" of "what have I done >> so far---does everything make sense?" if such "extra" changes >> are excluded. > So, in short, it is not "undefined", but rather it seems to be a > designed behaviour that we are seeing. Apologies if you feel I misquoted you. I am confused by the comment in the original code w.r.t the location of the cache reset, which (from my understanding) is contradictory with the quoted conversation and so I focused on those parts. Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I do not personally mind if we change the philosophy but because it > has been a longstanding designed behaviour, it may need a careful > transition plan. Out of curiosity, what would that involve?
