On 07/06/2018 01:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> 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. >
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. That makes me not want to contribute.
