On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > Right, but we also support relative paths via environment variables. I > > don't think that changes the conclusion though. I'm not convinced > > relative paths via the environment aren't slightly insane in the first > > place, > > Sorry, a triple negation is above my head. "relative paths in env > aren't insane" == "using relative paths is OK" and you are not > convinced that it is the case, so you are saying that you think > relative paths in env is not something that is sensible?
I think relative paths in env have very flaky semantics which makes them inadvisable to use in general. That being said, when we broke even those flaky semantics somebody complained. So I consider a feature we _do_ support, but not one I would recommend to people. -Peff
