On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:06:13AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > I don't think it would help usability to add new `--show-blobs` and > `--show-trees` options. The user interface to show this kind of > information exists already with `--objects`, and by adding another way > of asking a similar query would raise the question of how these two ways > interact with each other: > > - Does `--show-blobs` have effect if `--objects` is not set? > > - Is `--objects` redundant if we have `--show-blobs`, or would > `--objects --show-blobs` list all objects regardless of whether > they're blobs or not? > > - What would happen if the user says `--show-blobs --no-objects`? > > - Are these options mutually exclusive? > > We avoid all these questions by just adding it as a filter. I'm not too worried about those. I'd imagine that "--objects" becomes a documented synonym for "--show-trees --show-blobs --show-commits --show-tags", and then the usual interactions take over. But... > Furthermore, the filter also allows future iterations which build on top > of this. If we had a combined OR filter in addition to the existing > combined AND filter, the user could say "Give me all blobs which aren't > bigger than a specific size PLUS all trees with a depth smaller than 5 > PLUS all commits and tags". It's not like I'd know of a specific usecase > for this right now, but I think the potential of having such filters in > the future is a plus. Yeah, that's true. My biggest complaint is lack of an OR filter, but we could add that later. And then we would be _more_ flexible, as you note, since we could and/or more filters. So I'm OK proceeding with this direction. -Peff
