Hello.
Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
|Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> writes:
|> I think this behaviour contradicts the manual which strongly links
|> ls-tree to ls(1):
|
|Patches to the documentation is very much welcomed.
The below could serve this purpose.
|Somewhere the similarity must end, and actually it ends a lot
|earlier, as "/bin/ls" takes exact paths while "ls-tree" (or any
|other Git command for that matter) takes a pathspec pattern,
|and not having a path that matches the pathspec pattern is not
|an error condition.
I was just surprised to see nothing and get no feedback at all.
Ciao!
--steffen
diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
index dbc91f9..8ebeced 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-ls-tree.txt
@@ -33,6 +33,10 @@ in the current working directory. Note that:
However, the current working directory can be ignored by passing
--full-tree option.
+ - the behaviour is different to that of "/bin/ls" in sofar as non-existing
+ '<path>' arguments are silently ignored and not reflected in the exit
+ status code.
+
OPTIONS
-------
<tree-ish>::
