Re: [PATCH v2] add: warn when -u or -A is used without filepattern
From: Jonathan Nieder <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:55:55
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2] add: warn when -u or -A is used without filepattern · Matthieu Moy <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2] add: warn when -u or -A is used without filepattern · Matthieu Moy <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2] add: warn when -u or -A is used without filepattern · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v2] add: warn when -u or -A is used without filepattern · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Hi Matthieu, Matthieu Moy wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- a/builtin/add.c +++ b/builtin/add.c
[...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -392,8 +420,14 @@ int cmd_add(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) die(_("-A and -u are mutually incompatible")); if (!show_only && ignore_missing) die(_("Option --ignore-missing can only be used together with --dry-run")); - if ((addremove || take_worktree_changes) && !argc) { + if (addremove) + option_with_implicit_dot = "--all"; + if (take_worktree_changes) + option_with_implicit_dot = "--update";
I agree with Junio that these are most often spelled as "-A" and "-u".
+ if (option_with_implicit_dot && !argc) {
static const char *here[2] = { ".", NULL };
+ if (prefix)
+ warn_pathless_add(option_with_implicit_dot);For what it's worth, with or without s/--all/-A/ and s/--update/-u/, Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <redacted> Thanks. If someone wants to preserve the spelling of the option name passed by the user, that can happen as a patch on top.