Jacob Keller [off-list ref] writes:
Personally, I would want this to become the default and not have a new
option to trigger it. I think we could also extend the porcelain
format to include this information as well, but I'm not too familiar
with how the v2 format extends or not.
I think the general rule of thumb for --porcelain is that we can
freely introduce new record types without version bump, and expect
the reading scripts to ignore unrecognised records (we may need to
describe this a bit more strongly in our document, though), while
changes to the format of existing records must require a command
line option that cannot be turned on by default with configuration
(or a version bump, if you want to change the output format by
default).
I am getting the impression that this "we are doing X" is a new and
discinct record type that existing readers can safely ignore? If
that is the case, it may be better to add it without making it
optional.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Jacob Keller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Personally, I would want this to become the default and not have a new
option to trigger it. I think we could also extend the porcelain
format to include this information as well, but I'm not too familiar
with how the v2 format extends or not.
I think the general rule of thumb for --porcelain is that we can
freely introduce new record types without version bump, and expect
the reading scripts to ignore unrecognised records (we may need to
describe this a bit more strongly in our document, though), while
changes to the format of existing records must require a command
line option that cannot be turned on by default with configuration
(or a version bump, if you want to change the output format by
default).
I am getting the impression that this "we are doing X" is a new and
discinct record type that existing readers can safely ignore? If
that is the case, it may be better to add it without making it
optional.
Correct. But either way we should be free to change and extend the
non-porcelain format without worry I thought?
Thanks,
Jake
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Jacob Keller [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Personally, I would want this to become the default and not have a new
option to trigger it. I think we could also extend the porcelain
format to include this information as well, but I'm not too familiar
with how the v2 format extends or not.
I think the general rule of thumb for --porcelain is that we can
freely introduce new record types without version bump, and expect
the reading scripts to ignore unrecognised records (we may need to
describe this a bit more strongly in our document, though), while
changes to the format of existing records must require a command
line option that cannot be turned on by default with configuration
(or a version bump, if you want to change the output format by
default).
I am getting the impression that this "we are doing X" is a new and
discinct record type that existing readers can safely ignore? If
that is the case, it may be better to add it without making it
optional.
I think we are safe in extending porcelain v2.
Thanks,
Jake