Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:
I don't think it is needed for either command.
'git blame' has --porcelain and --incremental output, which is line-based
and pretty much self-describing (with "header-name value" syntax for most
of it), and well documented. JSON output would only add unnecessary
chatter and different quoting rules.
Wouldn't the exact same argument apply equally well to the output format
of "status --porcelain", by the way? It is line-based and pretty much
self-describing (once you know the mnemonic but you can make an educated
guess from previous SCM experience).
Dnia środa 14. kwietnia 2010 21:32, Junio C Hamano napisał:
Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I don't think it is needed for either command.
'git blame' has --porcelain and --incremental output, which is line-based
and pretty much self-describing (with "header-name value" syntax for most
of it), and well documented. JSON output would only add unnecessary
chatter and different quoting rules.
Wouldn't the exact same argument apply equally well to the output format
of "status --porcelain", by the way? It is line-based and pretty much
self-describing (once you know the mnemonic but you can make an educated
guess from previous SCM experience).
No, current "git status --porcelain" output is record-based (tabular);
the meaning is not described by header but depends on field in record,
i.e. position in line.
Self describing output of "git status --porcelain" would be
filename <maybe-quoted filename>
renamed-from <maybe-quoted filename>
similarity 95%
worktree ...
index ...
or something like that...
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland