On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
>>> I mean low level as in implementation detail. The human user would
>>> wonder "what is incompatible about them? Why are you stopping me from
>>> what I am trying to do?"
>>
>> Maybe
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> I mean low level as in implementation detail. The human user would
>> wonder "what is incompatible about them? Why are you stopping me from
>> what I am trying to do?"
>
> Maybe s/incompatible/inconsistent/ is what you are after? Why are
> you
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>>
>>> Another option would be to call 'usage' and be done.
>>
>> I had that idea as well, but I think pointing out the low level is better
>> than giving the high level again, so the user immediately sees what's wrong.
>
> I mean low level
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
+When the command is run without pathspec, it errors out,
+instead of deinit-ing everything, to prevent mistakes. In
+version 2.8 and before the command gave a suggestion to use
+'.' to unregister
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> I mean low level as in implementation detail. The human user would
> wonder "what is incompatible about them? Why are you stopping me from
> what I am trying to do?"
Maybe s/incompatible/inconsistent/ is what you are after? Why are
you stopping me from what I am tryi
Stefan Beller writes:
>>> +When the command is run without pathspec, it errors out,
>>> +instead of deinit-ing everything, to prevent mistakes. In
>>> +version 2.8 and before the command gave a suggestion to use
>>> +'.' to unregister all submodules when it was invoked without
>>> +any argument,
Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I think this paragraph could be removed. --all is explained lower
>> down and the error message points it out to users who need it.
>
> When we want to keep supporting '.' forever, I would remove this section.
Yes,
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller
>> ---
>> * reworded commit message slightly (realize, pathspec)
>> * reworded the documentation
>
> Yay, thanks for your work on this.
>
> [...]
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-subm
Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller
> ---
> * reworded commit message slightly (realize, pathspec)
> * reworded the documentation
Yay, thanks for your work on this.
[...]
> +++ b/Documentation/git-submodule.txt
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> [--reference ] [--d
Stefan Beller writes:
> +When the command is run without pathspec, it errors out,
> +instead of deinit-ing everything, to prevent mistakes. In
> +version 2.8 and before the command gave a suggestion to use
> +'.' to unregister all submodules when it was invoked without
> +any argument, but this s
The discussion in [1] pointed out that '.' is a faulty suggestion as
there is a corner case where it fails:
> "submodule deinit ." may have "worked" in the sense that you would
> have at least one path in your tree and avoided this "nothing
> matches" most of the time. It would have still failed
11 matches
Mail list logo
