On 11/15, Stefan Beller wrote: > +/** > + * When updating the working tree, do we need to check if the submodule needs > + * updating. We do not require a check if we are already sure that the > + * submodule doesn't need updating, e.g. when we are not interested in > submodules > + * or the submodule is marked uninteresting by being not initialized. > + */
The first sentence seems a bit awkward. It seems like its worded as a question, maybe drop the 'do'? -- Brandon Williams
