On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 13:35 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > We have some internal scripts at Disney Animation that rely on "git remote"
> > output so I would vote for #3 personally as well.
>
> I take it that you mean you would vote _against_ #3 which will break
> the expectation.
>
> > I know that "git config" is porcelain, and I can get remote.(.*).url,
> > but that's not obvious and I highly doubt that anyone does that.
>
> Perhaps that is something worth fixing.
>
> > What if we said that "git remote list --porcelain" == "git remote"
> > and then just leave "git remote" output as-is so that we don't have to
> > have a flag day when we break people's scripts?
>
> I suspect that it is not likely a workable solution. The commands
> being Porcelain by definition means that people aimed to make their
> output consumable by humans, and the current "git remote", which may
> be what your script happens to use, is not by design the best
> representation of the information for all the script writers to
> want to call _good_.
>
> If we were to do "git remote list", I'd imagine it would be far more
> useful to have --format="<format specifiers>" option so that you can
> do something like
>
> git remote list --format="%(name) %(url) (%(direction))"
>
> Then scripts can explicitly ask for what they want and have less
> chance of getting broken (I say "less" because what %(specifier)
> stands for could be changed either to fix mistakes or by mistake).
>
> >> > Having said that, my preference is
> >> >
> >> > 0. Do nothing, but document the "default to listing" better if
> >> > needed.
> >> >
> >> > and then 2. above, and then 1.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I'd agree with that.
> >
Personally, I have always disliked that "git remote" only shows remote
names, which is almost entirely useless to me as a human. Obviously it
is easiest way to actually get the remote names out.
I would much prefer changing the output so that git remote shows all the
output.. But yes, this does potentially break expected output from a git
command that might be used by scripts.
I end up typing git remote and forgetting the -v a lot of the time, so I
have to re-run the command. It has also confused many new people I've
had to teach git.
Regards,
Jake
��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�