Re: [PATCH] ls-files: respect 'submodule.recurse' config

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Philippe Blain <levraiphilippeblain@gmail.com> writes:

> I understand, but I would argue that such a user could easily adapt their
> script to add '--no-recurse-submodules' to their ls-files invocation if that 
> is the case, no ?

It would have been quite a different story if we were designing
"ls-files" and adding support for "--[no-]recurse-submodules" and
"submodule.recurse" to the command at the same time.  To those who
write scripts with "ls-files" and complain that the command behaves
differently depending on the configuration, you can legitimately say
"you can use --no-recurse-submodules and you are fine" in that case.

But not after all these years.  The same statement becomes "even if
I broke the command, users could work around the breakage I caused".
That is nothing more than a lame excuse that does not explay why you
think you have the right to break their script in the first place.

So, no, I am not enthused to see this change.  Regardless of which
configuration variable affects the feature.  For those who wrote and
use scripts that run ls-files, it is a regression to invite unneeded
complaints from their end-users who suddenly see the breakage in the
scripts.