Re: [PATCH] t7422: remove extraneous argument to printf

From: Subhaditya Nath <sn03.general@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2025, 16:29 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPHxB8un1w-NBnfLne9d=vv9Sqa69eGoLhjOM0GcmhgkYKt-PA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cT1dQL+MfUctyw=9O5Wd2yUqA40pXSgsRHKfNf=6vxQ7w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 10:35 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:

> [...] for the sake of consistency and to match the author's original
> intent, it may make more sense to retain the argument to printf and
> instead employ `%d`.

I see.

The problem is, there are multiple ways the printf statement could be written -

1)      printf "[submodule \"sm-$i\"]\npath = recursive-submodule-path-$i\n"
2)      printf "[submodule \"sm-$i\"]\npath =
recursive-submodule-path-%d\n" "$i"
3)      printf "[submodule \"sm-%d\"]\npath =
recursive-submodule-path-$i\n" "$i"
4)      printf "[submodule \"sm-%d\"]\npath =
recursive-submodule-path-%d\n" "$i" "$i"

Which one of these is to be used? I shall update the patch with the approach that is decided upon.

Respectfully, S.

P.S. Sorry for the delay in replying. I got caught up in something...