On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:44:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Convert submodule subcommand 'set-branch' to a builtin and call it via > > 'git-submodule.sh'. > > > > Mentored-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Mentored-by: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@xxxxxxxxx> > > Helped-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> > > Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Shourya Shukla <shouryashukla.oo@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Thank you for the review Eric. I have changed the commit message, > > and the error prompts. Also, I have added a brief comment about > > the `quiet` option. > > Sorry, I may have missed the previous rounds of discussion, but the > comment adds more puzzles than it helps readers. "is currently not > used" can be seen from the code, but it is totally unclear why it is > not used. Is that a design decision to always keep quiet or always > talkative (if so, "suppress output..." is not a good description)? > Is that that this is a WIP patch that the behaviour the option aims > to achieve hasn't been implemented? Is it that no existing callers > pass "-q" to the scripted version, so there is no need to support > it (if so, why do we even accept it in the first place)? Is it that > all existing callers pass "-q" so we need to accept it, but there is > nothing we need to make verbose so the variable is not passed around > in the codepath? As the original author of the shell code, I had it accept -q because, with the other subcommmands, you can pass -q either before or after the subcommand such as $ git submodule -q sync or $ git submodule sync -q and I wanted set-branch to retain that behaviour even though -q ultimately doesn't affect set-branch at all since it's already a quiet command. Perhaps as a follow-up to this patch, we could stop accepting -q in set-branch. I highly doubt that anyone is using it anyway.
