From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplified the invocation of command action in submodule Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:04 +0100 Message-ID: <47849B60.2060000@viscovery.net> References: <1199851140-31853-1-git-send-email-imyousuf@gmail.com> <47848CDD.7050806@viscovery.net> <7bfdc29a0801090151k22d3cd5aqedb0d4860868d4d9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Imran M Yousuf X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 09 11:01:45 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JCXkj-0006Kn-VO for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752027AbYAIKBM (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:01:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752152AbYAIKBL (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:01:11 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:25022 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752027AbYAIKBK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2008 05:01:10 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1JCXk8-0004rl-RK; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:01:06 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA474E4; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 11:01:04 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <7bfdc29a0801090151k22d3cd5aqedb0d4860868d4d9@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Imran M Yousuf schrieb: > On Jan 9, 2008 2:59 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> - Previously, passing --cached to add, init, or update was an error, now >> it is not. > > The usage statement and this behaviour is rather contradicting. The > usage says that --cached can be used with all commands; so I am not > sure whether using --cached with add should be an error or not. IMHO, > if the previous implementation was right than the USAGE has to be > changed, and if the previous implementation was incorrect, than if the > default command is set to status than current implementation is right. I prefer that the usage statement lists one line per sub-command with the flags that apply only to the sub-command. IOW, a usage statement that suggests that a flag applies to all sub-commands when in reality it doesn't is bogus, IMHO. -- Hannes