On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>>> Anyway, I'll apply the "addition to the completion" patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> Thanks for this patch!
>>
>> Note: if we ever decide to resurrect sb/submodule-default-path,
>> we run into a merge conflict. The r
Stefan Beller writes:
>> Anyway, I'll apply the "addition to the completion" patch.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Thanks for this patch!
>
> Note: if we ever decide to resurrect sb/submodule-default-path,
> we run into a merge conflict. The reasoning for using
> "--recurse-submodules" instead of a plain "--r
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
>>> I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This
>>> adds
>>> it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
>>> recall the former being agreed upon as the
Junio C Hamano writes:
>> I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This
>> adds
>> it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
>> recall the former being agreed upon as the better (or least ambiguous) of the
>> two terms.
>
> Yup, that
Chris Packham writes:
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham
> ---
> Hi,
>
> I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This adds
> it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
> recall the former being agreed upon as the better (or least ambiguou
Signed-off-by: Chris Packham
---
Hi,
I noticed --recurse-submodules was missing from the bash completion. This adds
it. I went for '--recurse-submodules' instead of '--recursive' as I seem to
recall the former being agreed upon as the better (or least ambiguous) of the
two terms.
contrib/comple
6 matches
Mail list logo