Re: [PATCH 3/4 v4] ls-files: pass through safe options for --recurse-submodules

[Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>]

On 09/27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:
> > @@ -170,6 +171,27 @@ static void show_killed_files(struct dir_struct *dir)
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Compile an argv_array with all of the options supported by --recurse_submodules
> > + */
> > +static void compile_submodule_options(int show_tag)
> > +{
> > +	if (show_cached)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "--cached");
> > +	if (show_stage)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "--stage");
> > +	if (show_valid_bit)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "-v");
> > +	if (show_tag)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "-t");
> > +	if (line_terminator == '\0')
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "-z");
> > +	if (debug_mode)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "--debug");
> > +	if (show_eol)
> > +		argv_array_push(&recurse_submodules_opts, "--eol");
> > +}
> 
> OK.  These are only the safe ones to pass through?  "compile" or
> "assemble" is much less important thing to say than how these are
> chosen.  "pass_supported_options()" or something?  I dunno.

Alternatively we can change this to compile all potential options (not
just the ones that are supported now) and then just error the caller
out, as you've suggested, if an unsupported option used.  'pass' may not
be the most descriptive word for this function as it isn't actually
doing the passing but rather generating an argv of options that will be
passed in the event a submodule is found and we need to kick off a child
process for it.

-- 
Brandon Williams