New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ls-files: document that pathspecs are supported #1466
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
/submit |
Submitted as pull.1466.git.git.1678526355280.gitgitgadget@gmail.com To fetch this version into
To fetch this version to local tag
|
On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this): "Adam Johnson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> From: Adam Johnson <me@adamj.eu>
>
> The command has taken pathspecs, not just filenames, since f0096c06bcd
> (Convert read_tree{,_recursive} to support struct pathspec, 2011-03-25).
Isn't that commit about ls-tree? The commit does change how the
tree overlay (i.e. the --with-tree=<tree-ish> option) interacts with
the given pathspec arguments but that is only because that commit
changes how read_tree_recursive() has to be called. The support of
pathspec matching in ls-files dates back to 56fc5108 ([PATCH]
git-ls-files: generalized pathspecs, 2005-08-21), arguably even
before the commit "generalized" the already existing path pattern
match feature.
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> index 1abdd3c21c5..2f62374062c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> [--exclude-standard]
> [--error-unmatch] [--with-tree=<tree-ish>]
> [--full-name] [--recurse-submodules]
> - [--abbrev[=<n>]] [--format=<format>] [--] [<file>...]
> + [--abbrev[=<n>]] [--format=<format>] [--] [<pathspec>...]
Good.
> DESCRIPTION
> -----------
> @@ -127,12 +127,12 @@ OPTIONS
> in each directory, and the user's global exclusion file.
>
> --error-unmatch::
> - If any <file> does not appear in the index, treat this as an
> + If any <pathspec> does not appear in the index, treat this as an
> error (return 1).
This is no longer correct. "If no path that matches <pathspec>
appears in the index". When we are given <pathspec>, say '*.txt',
a path whose string is literally '*.txt' may not appear in the index,
but as long as there is a path that matches the pattern exists,
this option does not lead to an error.
> -<file>::
> +<pathspec>::
> Files to show. If no files are given all files which match the other
The description also needs to be updated. "Limits the files to show
to only those that match the given pathspec" or something along that
line.
Thanks. |
The command has taken pathspecs, not just filenames, since at least 56fc510 ([PATCH] git-ls-files: generalized pathspecs, 2005-08-21). Signed-off-by: Adam Johnson <me@adamj.eu>
4a0417b
to
7c95f4f
Compare
/submit |
Submitted as pull.1466.v2.git.git.1678622116232.gitgitgadget@gmail.com To fetch this version into
To fetch this version to local tag
|
On the Git mailing list, Adam Johnson wrote (reply to this): Thank you Junio, that's very good review feedback. Thank you for
finding the correct past commit. I am submitting an updated patch now.
On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 8:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "Adam Johnson via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: Adam Johnson <me@adamj.eu>
> >
> > The command has taken pathspecs, not just filenames, since f0096c06bcd
> > (Convert read_tree{,_recursive} to support struct pathspec, 2011-03-25).
>
> Isn't that commit about ls-tree? The commit does change how the
> tree overlay (i.e. the --with-tree=<tree-ish> option) interacts with
> the given pathspec arguments but that is only because that commit
> changes how read_tree_recursive() has to be called. The support of
> pathspec matching in ls-files dates back to 56fc5108 ([PATCH]
> git-ls-files: generalized pathspecs, 2005-08-21), arguably even
> before the commit "generalized" the already existing path pattern
> match feature.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > index 1abdd3c21c5..2f62374062c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> > [--exclude-standard]
> > [--error-unmatch] [--with-tree=<tree-ish>]
> > [--full-name] [--recurse-submodules]
> > - [--abbrev[=<n>]] [--format=<format>] [--] [<file>...]
> > + [--abbrev[=<n>]] [--format=<format>] [--] [<pathspec>...]
>
> Good.
>
> > DESCRIPTION
> > -----------
> > @@ -127,12 +127,12 @@ OPTIONS
> > in each directory, and the user's global exclusion file.
> >
> > --error-unmatch::
> > - If any <file> does not appear in the index, treat this as an
> > + If any <pathspec> does not appear in the index, treat this as an
> > error (return 1).
>
> This is no longer correct. "If no path that matches <pathspec>
> appears in the index". When we are given <pathspec>, say '*.txt',
> a path whose string is literally '*.txt' may not appear in the index,
> but as long as there is a path that matches the pattern exists,
> this option does not lead to an error.
>
> > -<file>::
> > +<pathspec>::
> > Files to show. If no files are given all files which match the other
>
> The description also needs to be updated. "Limits the files to show
> to only those that match the given pathspec" or something along that
> line.
>
> Thanks. |
The command has taken pathspecs, not just filenames, since f0096c0 (Convert read_tree{,_recursive} to support struct pathspec, 2011-03-25).
Signed-off-by: Adam Johnson me@adamj.eu
CC: Elijah Newren newren@gmail.com