Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
> Yes, that can work, for example like this (replacing the patch you're
> replying to).
I think that would be a better approach if we were to do this. I
still have the same reservation that "this is fundamentally not
worse but still hurts the users more".
> + /*
> + * Check if "git add -A" or "git add -u" was run from a
> + * subdirectory with a modified file outside that directory,
> + * and warn if so.
> + *
> + * "git add -u" will behave like "git add -u :/" instead of
> + * "git add -u ." in the future. This warning prepares for
> + * that change.
> + */
> + if (implicit_dot &&
> + !match_pathspec(implicit_dot, path, strlen(path), 0, NULL))
> {
This one really should *not* use match_pathspec(), I think.
It is a special case where we were asked to limit to our directory
but decided to grab everything instead and filtering the outcome
outselves. We should have a "path to the starting directory" aka
"prefix" in implicit_dot and check if path is covered by the prefix
instead.
> + warn_pathless_add();
> + continue;
> + }
> switch (fix_unmerged_status(p, data)) {
> default:
> die(_("unexpected diff status %c"), p->status);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
