Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I understand, but I would argue that such a user could easily adapt their > script to add '--no-recurse-submodules' to their ls-files invocation if that > is the case, no ? It would have been quite a different story if we were designing "ls-files" and adding support for "--[no-]recurse-submodules" and "submodule.recurse" to the command at the same time. To those who write scripts with "ls-files" and complain that the command behaves differently depending on the configuration, you can legitimately say "you can use --no-recurse-submodules and you are fine" in that case. But not after all these years. The same statement becomes "even if I broke the command, users could work around the breakage I caused". That is nothing more than a lame excuse that does not explay why you think you have the right to break their script in the first place. So, no, I am not enthused to see this change. Regardless of which configuration variable affects the feature. For those who wrote and use scripts that run ls-files, it is a regression to invite unneeded complaints from their end-users who suddenly see the breakage in the scripts.
