Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
All of which (and more) would also be addressed in an obvious way by
just supporting --format as I suggested in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/211115.86o86lqe3c.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/;
don't you think that's a better approach?
That is what I would call over-engineering that I would rather not
to have in low level plumbing.
I am all for making _parsing_ the output from the tool easier by
scripts; I am not interested in eliminating the _output_ by scripts.
They should capture and format the pieces we output in any way they
want.
So, no, I do not think it is a better approach at all.
On Mon, Nov 22 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
All of which (and more) would also be addressed in an obvious way by
just supporting --format as I suggested in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/211115.86o86lqe3c.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/;
don't you think that's a better approach?
That is what I would call over-engineering that I would rather not
to have in low level plumbing.
I am all for making _parsing_ the output from the tool easier by
scripts; I am not interested in eliminating the _output_ by scripts.
They should capture and format the pieces we output in any way they
want.
So, no, I do not think it is a better approach at all.
We've got --format for for-each-ref and family (also branch etc.), and
for the "log" family.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, do you think if we could
go back and change it that the "FIELD NAMES" in git-for-each-ref (which
is plumbing) would have been better done as
--field-name=refname,objecttype,... etc?
Having used it extensively it's been very hard to have the flexibility
of formatting, e.g. to specify arbitrary delimiters.
It also leaves the door open to teaching ls-tree etc. the %(if) syntax
in the ref-filter, e.g. if you'd like to only print out certain data for
certain object types or whatever.