From: Jens Lehmann <jens.lehmann@web.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:54:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [submodule] Add depth to submodule update
Message-ID: <51CDF819.9030308@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vk3lenkhh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Am 28.06.2013 20:44, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:54:45PM +0200, Jens Lehmann wrote:
>> ...
>>> Me too thinks adding "--depth" to "update" makes sense (and I don't
>>> think that this pretty generic name will become a problem later in
>>> case someone wants to add a maximum recursion depth, as grep already
>>> uses "--max-depth" for the same purpose).
>>
>> Hmm, but does it have a --depth option for revisions? Maybe we should
>> call it --clone-depth or --rev-depth to make it clear? --depth and
>> --max-depth would be completely orthogonal but the name does not allow
>> to distinguish them properly.
> 
> I do not have a strong opinion either way, but as you suggest, it
> might be a good idea to call this new option --clone-depth to be
> more specific.

No strong opinion here either, but I'm leaning towards "--depth"
because on one hand we already have the "--reference" option which
is passed on to the clone command (and not "--clone-reference") and
on the other hand I cannot see the need for yet another depth option
(even my "--max-depth" example doesn't seem to be terribly useful).
But I might be wrong on the last one ;-)