From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9AD1F619 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 19:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727047AbgCRTsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:48:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:50712 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726647AbgCRTsk (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:48:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277F23AD94; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:48:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=/K2/23N15Ydu3G1JyzN/qmybWn0=; b=KLlsMh dH76I8z2qH62vnKXi7kcINH7Z8E1WFi5gHUqWyxA/Hlij9xc8AKVFps6KjqMM8c0 VXbHfgE22V8R5gAwJoUZI3cLJl2GscRtcNyj9yh7ra+Sxt3f2Xmw/R8Q3yVZ/cxn F1Ky90sTkeKqQPsnseHaF4AmiivrhHtrd0xhw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=OS4sg1M0sfMBeDVrWFCTk3vlyeDhRgpn Kj9ZiuIJJINabv4WV3eWyOw2jTRpBMOINdIHNFcCSzJZyntiYvSf5wJ4KfIWIc4X XWpUX2tp6/h8OO1f6BYUfGZG33Byy82kxSjB0mIi/hzmo2tO7YVscjGFv+T6jgUY nHgO8rjwPuI= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E85E3AD93; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:48:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95D623AD92; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 15:48:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Shourya Shukla Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, johannes.schindelin@gmx.de, newren@gmail.com, peff@peff.net, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, jnareb@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC][Feature] submodule: teach subcommand 'summary' to give summary for nested submodules References: <20200318163234.21628-1-shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 12:48:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200318163234.21628-1-shouryashukla.oo@gmail.com> (Shourya Shukla's message of "Wed, 18 Mar 2020 22:02:34 +0530") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 75B5973C-6951-11EA-972D-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Shourya Shukla writes: > I was converting the subcommand 'summary'(of command submodule) > from shell to C and I realised that the subcommand does not have a > '--recursive' option in it, meaning it cannot give out summaries > of nested submodules. My opinion on this is that an option should > maybe exist for the same. > > What are the community's thoughts on this? Should the > aforementioned option be added? Is there any feasibility of this > option in this case? If "git submodule summary --recursive" errors out with today's code, no sane user would be using it for any useful purpose, so I would think it is OK to add such a feature. If it makes a usable UI for large projects that you can only choose between "include no subsubmodules" (i.e. with --no-recursive) or "include all sub(sub)*modules" (i.e. with --recursive) is another matter, though.