Re: [PATCH v2] submodule: port subcommand 'set-branch' from shell to C

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:23 AM Shourya Shukla
<shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/05 02:57, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:27 PM Shourya Shukla
> > <shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +        OPT__QUIET(&quiet,
> >
> > However, the bigger question is: Why is the --quiet option even here?
> > None of the code in this function ever consults the 'quiet' variable,
> > so its presence seems pointless.
>
> I actually wanted to have *some* use of the `quiet` option and delivered
> it in the v1, but after some feedback had to scrap it. You may have a
> look here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200513201737.55778-2-shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com/

I agree with Denton's conclusion about not introducing needless noise
merely to give the --quiet option something to squelch. And, to answer
your question about when and when not to print something, a good "Unix
way" guideline is that "silence is golden"[1].

[1]: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html#id2878450

> > Looking at the git-submodule documentation, I see that it is already
> > documented as accepted --quiet, so it may make some sense for you to
> > accept the option here. However, it might be a good idea either to
> > have an in-code comment or a blurb in the commit message explaining
> > that this C rewrite accepts the option for backward-compatibility (and
> > for future extension), not because it is actually used presently.
>
> That seems like a better idea; should I add this comment just above the
> `options` array? BTW, the shell version has a comment about this,
> see:
> https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.26.2/git-submodule.sh#L727

It would be a good idea to attach a comment like that to the
declaration of 'quiet' in the C code (rather than placing it above the
'options' array). For instance:

    /* for backward compatibility but not presently used */
    int quiet = 0;

> > > +        die(_("--branch and --default do not make sense together"));
> >
> > A more precise way to say this is:
> >
> >   die(_("--branch and --default are mutually exclusive"));
>
> Will that be clear to everyone? What I mean is maybe a person from a
> non-mathematical background (someone doing programming as a hobby maybe)
> will not grasp at this at one go and will have to search it's meaning
> online. Isn't it fine as-is?

Others have already responded to this up-thread...