On Dec 18, 2007 2:43 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > But the act of running "git-show <tree-ish>:<path>" does have a working > > directory relative to the project root. > > Not necessarily. My primary use of "git show <tree-ish>:<path>" (yes, I > already use the dash-less form ;-) is in _bare_ repositories. > > And I still maintain that expecting <tree-ish>:<path> to take the current > relative path into account would be just like if you expected > > C:\> cd WINDOWS > C:\WINDOWS> dir D:system32 > > to show you the contents of D:\WINDOWS\system32. > > Or another, less Windowsy example: > > $ cd /usr/bin > $ scp home:bash ./ > > No, this does not copy home:/usr/bin/bash but home:$HOME/bash. Both of your counterexamples use 2 disjoint directory trees: C: vs D:, or trees on different machines. The cases we are talking about are all subtrees of the working tree. There is a useful cwd suffix. Don't you think that git <op> commit:./file.c could occasionally be more convenient than git <op> commit:very/long/and/boring/path/equal/to/cwd/file.c ? Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@xxxxxxxxx +1 650 804 5991 cell - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
