Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
@@ -165,6 +166,10 @@ cmd_add()
--depth=*)
depth=$1
;;
+ -g|--group)
+ submodule_groups=${submodule_groups:+${submodule_groups};}"$2"
+ shift
+ ;;
You would want to accept "--group=<name>" as well, just like
existing --reference and --depth do. It won't be much more code,
and when you move to C (hence parse_options) you'd get it for free
anyway.
I am not sure, if I will to move `add` to C any time soon. Sure I desire
less shell and more C[1], but I'd think my time could be spent better than
just converting scripts to C. Sometimes I have to though, such as in the
case of `init` as the the call out from C to shell is too ugly and the effort to
do that is not that much less.
You can do so in less time than you spent making the above 5-line
excuse. It won't be much more code, and it is not ugly at all.
--group=*)
group=$group ${1#--group=} ;;
or something, right?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
quoted
@@ -165,6 +166,10 @@ cmd_add()
--depth=*)
depth=$1
;;
+ -g|--group)
+ submodule_groups=${submodule_groups:+${submodule_groups};}"$2"
+ shift
+ ;;
You would want to accept "--group=<name>" as well, just like
existing --reference and --depth do. It won't be much more code,
and when you move to C (hence parse_options) you'd get it for free
anyway.
I am not sure, if I will to move `add` to C any time soon. Sure I desire
less shell and more C[1], but I'd think my time could be spent better than
just converting scripts to C. Sometimes I have to though, such as in the
case of `init` as the the call out from C to shell is too ugly and the effort to
do that is not that much less.
You can do so in less time than you spent making the above 5-line
excuse. It won't be much more code, and it is not ugly at all.
--group=*)
group=$group ${1#--group=} ;;
or something, right?
Right, that's what I have here now. I should have said that.
I was not trying to excuse anything, but more explaining the situation
when reading the second sentence. (You seem to assume I'd want to rewrite
all the shell scripts. Which I am not)
Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:
Right, that's what I have here now. I should have said that.
I was not trying to excuse anything, but more explaining the situation
when reading the second sentence. (You seem to assume I'd want to rewrite
all the shell scripts. Which I am not)
I think it is a reasonable way to spend your time by not rewriting
everything in C but the parts the matter the most. But it makes it
even more important to do the part that will be left in shell for a
longer time in such a way that will be helpful to the end users (by
accepting both "--group name" and "--group=name", in the codepath
under discussion).