Re: Bug: manpage for `git ls-files` uses instead of
Lily Ballard writes: > I haven’t checked any other commands that the glossary lists as > taking pathspecs (except `git add`, which does properly list it as > taking pathspecs), so I don’t know if any of the other commands > incorrectly list themselves as taking files when they take > pathspecs. I do not offhand think of a command that only takes pathname, including "ls-files". New users would think "git cmd README" is taking a single filename "README", and "ls-files" doc uses "file" in a misguided attempt to be "newbie friendly", but it always has used that "README" string as a pattern to match paths against.
Bug: manpage for `git ls-files` uses instead of
`git ls-files` takes zero or more s, but the manpage (and the `-h` output) lists it as taking zero or more s instead. This is confusing as is documented in `man git` as a filename, without any magic. But a pathspec has a lot of special handling. The gitglossary entry for pathspec does say that `git ls-files` takes it, but nobody is going to know to look there in the first place if they look at `git ls-files` and see that it takes files. I haven’t checked any other commands that the glossary lists as taking pathspecs (except `git add`, which does properly list it as taking pathspecs), so I don’t know if any of the other commands incorrectly list themselves as taking files when they take pathspecs. git version 2.19.1. -Lily Ballard