On 3/29/2021 7:06 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 29 2021, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >> On 3/28/2021 11:31 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:> It seems to me that the reason for that state is based on a >>> misunderstanding about what we would and wouldn't add to builtin/*.c, >>> i.e. that we wouldn't have something like a --debug option, but as >>> ls-files shows that's not a problem. > > At the risk of going in circles here... > >> I feel _strongly_ that a change to the user-facing CLI should come >> with a good reason and care about how it locks-in behavior for the >> future. > > And I agree with you. Where we disagree is whether lives in builtin/*.c > == user-facing. I think --debug options are != that. It seems Junio > downthread agrees with that. > >> Any adjustment to 'git ls-files' deserves its own series and >> attention[...] > > A user-facing change to it yes, but I don't see how use of an (existing > even) --debug option would warrant any more attention than a new test > helper, less actually, it's less new code. I disagree that we can change the expected output of --debug so quickly, despite warnings in the documentation. Changing that format or creating a new output format requires cognitive load, and we have enough of that going on in this area as it is. >> [...] not in an already-too-large series like this one. ... > I'm just still perplexed at how you keep bringing up use of an > internal-only --debug option as "user-facing", and here "already too > large" when we're talking about a proposed alternate direction that > would reduce the size. I'm not saying "patch size" or "code size" but instead thinking of it in terms of how many decisions need to be made. Changing a builtin when it's not necessary adds to the complexity of the series and interrupts its core goals. Finally, I have mentioned that I will need extra data for testing a new index format. I don't want to modify the builtin now in a way that is insufficient for the needs in that future series. > Just to clarify, upthread in [1] you said: > > And I recommend that you continue to pursue [these RFC patches] as > an independent series, but I'm not going to incorporate them into > this one[...] > > So do I understand it right that you're referring to phase IV in your > opinion being the first point where we'd consider piggy-backing on > anything in builtin (that "user-facing" dilemma again...). I'm saying that if you feel strongly about it, then please pursue the changes to ls-files any time after this series (but probably after the next) solidifies. Having the changes be in a separate series allows time to inspect the behavior change to the builtin in a focused way. > But at that point wouldn't you have your own ideas about some > user-facing ls-files or other porcelain for this, so I'm not sure where > to place the encouragement that I continue to pursue that RFC series, > other than setting a reminder in my calendar for 6-12 months in the > future :) Otherwise, I will modify ls-files myself in this 6-12 month timeframe, based on the established plan to remove the command_requires_full_index setting. Thanks, -Stolee
