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

From: Subhaditya Nath <sn03.general@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 9, 2025, 16:32 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPHxB8vGANCjXRFHmxJL_73u6Zv_DtAvtAc20CSdE6v=LOFtMA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPHxB8un1w-NBnfLne9d=vv9Sqa69eGoLhjOM0GcmhgkYKt-PA@mail.gmail.com>

I am terribly sorry. It seems GMail auto-formats the email to a specific line length, even when explicitly instructed to not do so. In my previous email, it auto-formatted the printf statements.

Please ignore the formatting error.

Regrettably, S.

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:59 PM Subhaditya Nath <sn03.general@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 28 quoted lines

>
> 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...