On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:12 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:57 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> * es/recurse-submodules-option-is-a-bool (2023-04-10) 1 commit > >> . usage: clarify --recurse-submodules as a boolean > >> > >> The "--[no-]recurse-submodules" option of "git checkout" and others > >> supported an undocumented syntax --recurse-submodules=<value> where > >> the value can spell a Boolean in various ways. The support for the > >> syntax is being dropped. > >> > >> Have been expecting a reroll for too long. > >> cf. <ZDSTFwMFO7vbj/du@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> source: <ZDSTFwMFO7vbj/du@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Yeah, sorry about the annoying wait. It's not something I have time to > > reroll soon - but it's on the short list for "up next" bugs for my > > team to get a reroll. We still intend to reroll and push through, but > > I don't have an ETA. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to keep > > it in seen or drop it with that information. > > I actually do not quite understand this ;-) It wouldn't take more > than 20 seconds to read the "minimally touched-up version" sent > months ago https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfs97cozz.fsf@gitster.g/ > and say "yeah, that is perfect and please queue with the fixup" ;-) > > Or are there still further changes in behaviours planned? Huh, I thought that you wanted further changes. In https://lore.kernel.org/git/ZDSTFwMFO7vbj%2Fdu@xxxxxxxxxx/ I was asking for opinions on adding tests; if you're fine to take it without tests, then of course I don't have an objection to an identical patch with objectively improved grammar in the commit message. But since you were asking for a reroll in the What's Cooking, I figured there was more you were unhappy with in the patch. If that's not the case, by all means, go ahead and take it. - Emily
