Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] ls-files: pass through safe options for --recurse-submodules

[Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com>]

On 09/29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams <bmwill@google.com> writes:
> 
> > +static void compile_submodule_options(const struct dir_struct *dir, int show_tag)
> > +{
> > +	if (line_terminator == '\0')
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "-z");
> > +	if (show_tag)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "-t");
> > +	if (show_valid_bit)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "-v");
> > +	if (show_cached)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--cached");
> > +	if (show_deleted)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--deleted");
> > +	if (show_modified)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--modified");
> > +	if (show_others)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--others");
> > +	if (dir->flags & DIR_SHOW_IGNORED)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--ignored");
> > +	if (show_stage)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--stage");
> > +	if (show_killed)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--killed");
> > +	if (dir->flags & DIR_SHOW_OTHER_DIRECTORIES)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--directory");
> > +	if (!(dir->flags & DIR_SHOW_OTHER_DIRECTORIES))
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--empty-directory");
> > +	if (show_unmerged)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--unmerged");
> > +	if (show_resolve_undo)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--resolve-undo");
> > +	if (show_eol)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--eol");
> > +	if (debug_mode)
> > +		argv_array_push(&submodules_options, "--debug");
> > +}
> 
> With this and 4/4 applied, the documentation still says "--cached"
> is the only supported option.
> 
> Does it really make sense to pass all of these?  I understand "-z"
> and I suspect things like "-t" and "-v" that affect "how" things are
> shown may also happen to work, but I am not sure how much it makes
> sense for options that affect "what" things are shown.
> 
> What does it even mean to ask for say "--unmerged" to be shown, for
> example, from the superproject?  Recurse into submodules whose cache
> entries in the index of the superproject are unmerged, or something
> else?
> 
> I am inclined to say that it is probably better to keep the
> "--cached only" as documented, at least on the "what are shown"
> side.
> 
> Thanks.

You're right that probably makes the most sense for now.

-- 
Brandon Williams