> Stefan Sperling:
> 
>> It's great that you're pointing these inconsistencies out because they
>> do really need to be fixed. I don't actually care which way.
>> We just need to decide on a convention and apply it consistently.
>> Would you prefer an implicit dot to apply everywhere?
> 
> People coming from CVS or Subversion will expect an implicit dot.
> But if you say that Subversion's experience with this has been poor,
> then I'm happy to adapt.  I'm unsure how to best document this.
> The fact that you even can specify "." as a path is not obvious.
> 
> I don't understand the issues well enough to have an informed opinion
> here.
> 

I spend most of my time, and don't expect an implicit dot -- but
I don't care much: either option is sane.

I *do*, however, expect relative paths, which is enough to imply
to me that '.' will work explicitly.