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