Re: [PATCH] - Updated usage and simplified sub-command action invocation

["Imran M Yousuf" <imyousuf@gmail.com>]

On Jan 10, 2008 1:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "Imran M Yousuf" <imyousuf@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jan 10, 2008 12:23 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> I somehow feel that syntactically the original implementation
> >> that allowed subcommand specific options to come before the
> >> subcommand name was a mistake.  It may be easier for users that
> >> both "-b branch add" and "add -b branch" are accepted, but I
> >> have to wonder if it would really hurt if we made "-b branch
> >> add" a syntax error.
> >
> > I will recode it to have all options except for --quiet (which is
> > inverse of -v or --verbose) be mentioned after the subcommand.
>
> Just a word of caution when dealing with me.
>
> Unlike Linus, I am not always right.  And other people on the

I will cautiously remember the caution :).

> list who are here longer already know this. I am reasonably sure
> that some of them will disagree with me on design issues like
> this one; I mildly suspect that this forbidding "-b branch add"
> might be met with resistance from existing users.
>
> You do not have to agree with me on every little detail I
> mention.  If you feel a design issue might be contentious, it
> could turn out to be a better use of your time to keep the code
> as it is while waiting to see if other people would offer better
> alternatives.

Actually the best design, IMHO, is to have separate commands itself
for them, that is submodule-add, submodule-init, submodule-update,
submodule-status or submodule. I think this would also make it
coherent with other commands such as git-ls, git-merge, git-show. In
that way we could have a common .sh file that will contain the common
functions and can be accessed from the command shell scripts. This
would also make it quite simple.

>
> > Actually module_$command is not possible because only add's module is
> > module_add rest are modules_$command....
>
> Is there a fundamental reason why you cannot rename them to be
> more consistent?

In fact it is consistent, add works on a single module only, whereas
rest of the command works either on 1 or more. Thus having plural
(modules) is logical.

>

Best regards,

-- 
Imran M Yousuf