John Keeping <> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:09:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <> writes:
>> > John Keeping <> writes:
>> >
>> >> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <>
>> >> ---
>> >
>> > 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to