On Fri, Jan 14 2022, Teng Long wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:02 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> In the RFC series I sent this was first implemented in terms of the >> --format option, and I skipped the custom implementation you're adding >> here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-patch-7.7-5e34df4f8dd-20211217T131635Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> I think in terms of patch series structure it would make sense to do >> that, and then have this custom --object-only implementation in terms of >> not-"--format " follow from that, and thus with the tests for the two > > Sorry, the "not-"--format" means? Sorry about not being clear. I mean there's two potential implementations. One that't is terms of --format='%(objectname)', and the other with your custom (faster) code to implement it. >> (we'd add the tests you're adding here first, just for a >> --format="%(objectname)" or whatever) we'd see that the two are 1=1 >> equivalent in terms of functionality, but that this one is <X>% more >> optimized. > > Please allow me to understand your advice, if we put the commit of > introducing "--format" before the commit of introducing "--object-only", will > be better because it's possible to supply more optimized performance > (if we have) information in the commit message. Yes, you get the functionality you need with a simple alias of --format='%(objectname)' to --object-name (or whatever), so the only reason to carry the extra code is for optimization. I wonder if the extra difference in performance is still something you care about, or if just the --format implementation would be OK. But in any case, starting with a simpler implementation and testing it makes the progression easier to reason about.
