Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This adds
it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
recall the former being agreed upon as the better (or least ambiguous) of the
two terms.
Yup, that position is consistent with what 3446a54c (clone: fixup
recurse_submodules option, 2011-02-11) gave us.
Silly me. The blame actually goes down to ccdd3da6 (clone: Add the
--recurse-submodules option as alias for --recursive, 2010-11-04),
but the conclusion is the same.
Perhaps we should think about deprecating "--recursive"? I dunno.
Anyway, I'll apply the "addition to the completion" patch.
Thanks.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This adds
it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
recall the former being agreed upon as the better (or least ambiguous) of the
two terms.
Yup, that position is consistent with what 3446a54c (clone: fixup
recurse_submodules option, 2011-02-11) gave us.
Silly me. The blame actually goes down to ccdd3da6 (clone: Add the
--recurse-submodules option as alias for --recursive, 2010-11-04),
but the conclusion is the same.
quoted
Perhaps we should think about deprecating "--recursive"? I dunno.
Anyway, I'll apply the "addition to the completion" patch.
Thanks.
Thanks for this patch!
Note: if we ever decide to resurrect sb/submodule-default-path,
we run into a merge conflict. The reasoning for using
"--recurse-submodules" instead of a plain "--recurse" makes sense
as well, so that merge conflict will be resolved in favor of this patch.
Thanks,
Stefan