Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 15, 2020 at 23:10 comment added Fabio says Reinstate Monica This is indeed simpler, but on the other hand git ls-tree lets you specify a "tree-ish" (i.e. a branch, tag or commit), whereas git ls-files doesn't offer that option and works therefore only on HEAD.
Jul 19, 2017 at 16:50 comment added Resigned June 2023 @JonnyJD All Git man-pages are named as git-commit, git-init, git-ls-files, etc. even though the programs are actually subcommands. There never was a git-ls-files binary, most likely. The reasoning is that it's consistent with the external subcommand mechanism, which allows you to register a git foo command by writing a git-foo binary.
S May 14, 2015 at 21:52 history edited Michael Frank CC BY-SA 3.0
Tricks are for kids...
S May 14, 2015 at 21:52 history suggested Zain R CC BY-SA 3.0
Showing the actual exectable command to run rather than just giving the name of the command
May 14, 2015 at 21:28 review Suggested edits
S May 14, 2015 at 21:52
Oct 12, 2014 at 20:16 comment added Ascherer @JonnyJD, probably marked invalid because your edit should be a comment.
Jan 11, 2014 at 3:09 comment added JonnyJD Sorry but my edit wasn't invalid. In current git there is no git-ls-files binary. There is the git binary with the ls-files command. The link to the documentation is correct in content, but technically for an outdated binary.
Jan 9, 2014 at 16:56 history edited karel CC BY-SA 3.0
The suggested edit was invalid, so I rejected it and fixed the error.
Jan 9, 2014 at 16:37 review Suggested edits
Jan 9, 2014 at 16:56
Oct 22, 2013 at 8:14 comment added karatedog git ls-files instead of git ls-tree -r master --name-only is certainly simpler.
Nov 27, 2012 at 9:36 history answered Mihai Capotă CC BY-SA 3.0