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

Joshua Nelson [off-list ref] writes:

On 07/06/2018 01:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

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.

I have to say, as a first time contributor, reading this is extremely
discouraging. I'm not being told the patch can be improved, or that I've
made some error that should be corrected. I'm being told that the entire
idea of the patch is unwanted, that it doesn't have a place in a mature
project like git, that only bug fixes and security issues should be
accepted.

... on plumbing commands like ls-tree, where keeping the interface
stable is much more important than making it easier to "type".

Rules for porcelain commands are entirely different.