Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

Stefan Beller writes: >> IOW, the latter part _might_ be better if it were >> >> if test $# = 0 && test -z "$deinit_all" >> then >> echo >&2 "info: not deinitializing anything." >> echo >&2 "info: Use --all to deinitialize all

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >>> +if test -n "$deinit_all" && test "$#" -ne 0 >>> +then >>> +die "$(eval_gettext "usage: $dashless [--quiet] deinit >>> [-f|--force] (--all | [--]

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

Stefan Beller writes: >> I think some attempts like 06cdac5a (git-reset.txt: use "working >> tree" consistently, 2010-09-15) were made to clean things up even >> before "worktree" started to mean an entirely different thing, and >> we shouldn't make things worse by adding

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

Junio C Hamano writes: >> +if test -n "$deinit_all" && test "$#" -ne 0 >> +then >> +die "$(eval_gettext "usage: $dashless [--quiet] deinit >> [-f|--force] (--all | [--] ...)")" > > I doubt that "usage:" wants to go thru l10n. > > I suspect that it is more

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> (e.g. work tree for working tree?) > > This was probably primarily my fault, not just because I've written > more than my share of documentation (compared to the code that >

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

Stefan Beller writes: > (e.g. work tree for working tree?) This was probably primarily my fault, not just because I've written more than my share of documentation (compared to the code that touched), but I was deliberately writing "work tree" when both "work tree" and

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I think this sentence talks about "working tree" (as opposed to > "worktree"), so s/work tree/working tree/. I'll fix this up in a resend, though it may be a fix on its own. So the two "official" terms are working tree

Re: [PATCHv3] submodule deinit: require '--all' instead of '.' for all submodules

Stefan Beller writes: > The discussion in [1] realized that '.' is a faulty suggestion as > there is a corner case where it fails: A discussion does not "realize" (you may say "the discussion made me realize" but that gets personal and subjective description that is