Re: [BUG] 'add -u' doesn't work from untracked subdir

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 12:02:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The intent of 1.7.0 is to fix usability glitches and warts that everybody
> has long agreed are problematic.  People have *just started* discussing
> about this---it is not remotely close to "everybody has long agreed are
> problematic" criteria.  It is too late for 1.7.0.

What about a config option that could change the behavior? True, the
time-frame for discussion is much shorter, but we are not proposing to
make a change that would affect users who do not agree to it. And I
think the point of giving a long time-frame for discussion is to let
people decide whether a change that users do not agree to may affect
them in a bad way.

The real danger here is that users of the config option may be breaking
an interface that is used by scripts. But I feel that 1.7.0 is probably
the best time in the forseeable future to do that, as script-writers
already must be wary of the version change.

> I personally find "add -u" that defaults to the current directory more
> natural than always going to the root; same preference for "grep".
> Besides, "add -u subdir" must add subdir relative to the cwd, without
> going to the root.  Why should "add -u" sans argument behave drastically
> differently?

I agree that there is a certain consistency to the current behavior. But
I also find it terribly annoying, because I _always_ want it to do the
other thing, and it silently accepts the command without even telling
me, leaving me to find out ten minutes later that what I thought was
added was not ("git add", by contrast, yells at you in the same
situation).

I also happen to prefer the other behavior because it is easy to switch
the two options: "git add -u" versus "git add -u .", whereas with
current behavior I am stuck calculating (and typing) the correct number
of "../" markers.

But I respect the fact that even if we had infinite time for discussion,
there would be people who prefer it the opposite way to me. So how about
that config option?

> Speaking of cwd-ness, I sometimes find ls-tree irritating, but I think
> this is in "if we had known better we would have designed it differently,
> but because we didn't, because many scripts already depend on the current
> behaviour, and because we have an --full-name escape hatch, we are not
> likely to change it, ever" category.

I assume you mean "ls-files".  I have every once in a while been annoyed
by that, but given how infrequently I run ls-files, it is not a big
deal. :)

> If "git add -u ../.." (I mean "the grand parent directory", not "an
> unnamed subdirectory") did not work, it would be unexcusable and we would
> want to devise an migration path, but otherwise I do not think it is such
> a big deal.  I would say the commands that are used to incrementally build

As I mentioned above, not only is that annoying to use, but the real
problem is that I _expect_ the other behavior and it silently does the
opposite of what I want. You can argue that my brain is defective (for
not remembering, I mean -- we _know_ it's defective in other ways), but
certainly a config option would be useful to me.

> Oh, "git grep -e foo ../..", however, does not seem to work.  That might be
> something people may want to tackle.

Thanks for mentioning "git grep"; I had forgotten that I have been
bitten by expecting full-tree behavior from that in the past, too. A
config option should cover that, too. ;)

-Peff