Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH 1/3] ls-tree: make <tree-ish> optional

Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> I'd prefer *not* to have such a DWIM in a command like ls-tree, aka
>> plumbing commands, where predictability is worth 1000 times more
>> than ease of typing.
> Fair enough.  However, what if no <tree-ish> or <path> are specified,
> though -- would you be okay with the HEAD being assumed instead of
> erroring out in that case?

If we wrote ls-tree to do so 12 years ago, then I wouldn't have
opposed.  Changing the behaviour now?  Not so sure if it is worth
having to worry about updating the code, docs and making sure we
spot all the possible typoes.