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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82641F4B4 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 19:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725796AbgIKTTW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:19:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:58202 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725776AbgIKTTV (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:19:21 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C548EC525; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:19:19 -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=xFM6jtMHY/WZ63FKQEYvjaPnrhQ=; b=x5f2cX 6Jn1F0Rdx3iHnvfla28haI1apF//K308PSjk7qfATvugSPAhRm/ByTjh7L5dUHrC xsdZVIbo9VjV6cQT8Po22ocWpFgD3FDOZ3TCgE72NdXF15YuQYbSz0Qfhxib0fGn PJufqYBAFIc3M0ODW322oEb6NGdnGof8RQ3Zs= 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=Fy2bX3ClgHQ4gyM4VaDo6KVMBadPqwQ/ PFV1nDDqHMLUUEwojKKdUxXOyuLwfX4Kr0LuMZAF0KtnylDX360YgWRvh2bT5CSF fbQmMlSYc/3OyJgnD9cP6W6/YvjARbB2K0szjoOVI4JoQ87HabRYTJXGMoKKua4B cjzYZ1sKCSw= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B0CEC524; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:19:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B47DDEC522; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:19:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Philippe Blain Cc: Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget , Git mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls-files: respect 'submodule.recurse' config References: <45EB4E9E-1819-41D6-839E-A3812456478C@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:19:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: <45EB4E9E-1819-41D6-839E-A3812456478C@gmail.com> (Philippe Blain's message of "Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:05:42 -0400") 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: AF42C176-F463-11EA-BD35-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Philippe Blain 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.