From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006841F858 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932110AbcKNPbM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:31:12 -0500 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:59006 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752399AbcKNPbK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:31:10 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59C92091D; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:31:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=warpmail.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=F3Fj0NcFCxbuDfn eY64l2CaSDbQ=; b=NJ3qf8z9OkWrjKzXJnoHHwYS8owCfGU0WEWo63u4jwXPOy+ qe8vQSqEn76FhwNpl7mb9Qni4q7jcW4JuV/jyfS2hHbKcrcaucMyskO99+kL+H+F r/TTKc5uZ6j20umhvGu12Zjr2Rshg7LCZ5PDJNdjGpwKCjP7hWWzXPTuUHdc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=F3Fj0NcFCxbuDfneY64l2CaSDbQ=; b=tZQuBlG952hcIZ2xNtJi vSZHo9t60Uz8AicWlfwcgqICRj6UrOL0m94UUH2N88QT9rXN6yzE9lyopseUqH6J ueoIbY3cJ6rI87w8quwBGiv5jk+CI/jHrseyVb6UgkX+h7nKCKrR1suiEDlRwFBA dng6LzZE11FaUSPzta6ws1I= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: 8Rv6D7MvU2nj7HhMt5CiEJv+vkZWFwmrIdZwO6qqqgqm 1479137469 Received: from UltraSam.fritz.box (ip29.236.mip.uni-hannover.de [130.75.236.29]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D33877E046; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:31:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] git diff <(command1) <(command2) To: Johannes Schindelin , Jacob Keller References: <20161111201958.2175-1-dennis@kaarsemaker.net> Cc: Junio C Hamano , Dennis Kaarsemaker , Git mailing list From: Michael J Gruber Message-ID: <0c39be16-76f8-0800-41a2-b7b1dccdd652@drmicha.warpmail.net> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:31:06 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 12.11.2016 11:08: > Hi, > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Dennis Kaarsemaker writes: >>> >>>> No tests or documentation updates yet, and I'm not sure whether >>>> --follow-symlinks in other modes than --no-index should be supported, ignored >>>> (as it is now) or cause an error, but I'm leaning towards the third option. >>> >>> My knee-jerk reaction is: >>> >>> * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks >>> behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off. >>> >> >> I agree. We shouldn't have to specify this for no-index. > > Ummm. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the > --index version as possible. For example when comparing directories > containing symlinks. You seem intent on breaking this scenario. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the --index-version as possible, regarding formatting etc., and to be a good substitute for ordinary diff. The proposed patch achieves exactly that - why should a *file* argument (which is not a pathspec in --no-index mode) not be treated in the same way in which every other command treats a file argument? The patch un-breaks the most natural expectation. Michael