ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> But in any case shouldn't this be called --name-only to go with "git >> ls-tree"'s version of this? Or is there some subtle difference I'm >> missing...? > > Eh, git ls-tree --name-only will only show file paths, so maybe > --only-object-name will be better than --object-name-only in git > ls-files. Yeah, it is not "--name-only" which is about paths, but "--object-name-only" would be more correct but it is a tad long. I think ls-tree learned "--object-only" for that fairly recently. When in doubt, always check the documentation of a similar command for inspiration. Thanks.
