From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [BUG] 'add -u' doesn't work from untracked subdir Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 04:02:49 -0400 Message-ID: <20090905080249.GA8801@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090902080305.GA11549@neumann> <20090902081917.GA5447@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090904070216.GA3996@darc.dnsalias.org> <20090905061804.GB29863@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v8wgt98ms.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090905072017.GA5152@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v3a717rgl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Clemens Buchacher , SZEDER =?utf-8?B?R8OhYm9y?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 05 10:03:05 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MjqEi-0000fT-F3 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:03:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753239AbZIEICw (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 04:02:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752257AbZIEICv (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 04:02:51 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:54125 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751985AbZIEICu (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2009 04:02:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 25667 invoked by uid 107); 5 Sep 2009 08:03:06 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:03:06 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:02:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v3a717rgl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 12:58:50AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > 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. :) > > I did mean ls-tree, but I misspelled the name of the escape hatch. Oh, I never noticed that behavior before. For "ls-files", I think it is at least a little sane, but it makes no sense whatsoever for ls-tree. > At this moment (as my brain is not quite functioning), I can only say we > agreed to disagree what feels more natural here. I agree that we agreed to disagree. But there is still one open question: would you take a patch for a "full-tree" config variable that would impact add (and probably grep) for 1.7.0? You can sleep on it if you want. ;) -Peff