John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:09:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: >> >> > John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes: >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> >> >> --- >> > >> > As these ;; are separators not terminators, this is not strictly >> > necessary. Squashing it into a change that adds more case arms to >> > this case statement is of course not just good but necessary, >> > though. >> >> s/necessary/may be &/; if you add new arms before this one, you >> won't need it. But if you add one after this, you would ;-). > > Hmm... POSIX describes them as terminators :-) > > The compound-list for each list of patterns, with the possible > exception of the last, shall be terminated with ";;".
A terminator that is optional at the end is a separator ;-). Having ';;' immediately before 'esac' is not wrong, but omitting it is exactly equally correct as having one, so it is not something we would want a patch to churn. > I'll drop this patch in the re-roll since it isn't necessary. This round looked good from a cursory read, except that the first one still makes me wonder why you chose to put it there _before_ where we handle --repo, where the corresponding case on "$cur" handles --repo= first and then --recurse-submodules= next. Wouldn't the end result easier to follow if you stuck to the same order? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
