On 01/05/2022 20:38, Abhradeep Chakraborty wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> You forgot to answer more important half of the question. It would >> be easy for you to know what the string inside brackets means >> because you are so obsessed with the promisor remote to write this >> patch ;-) But when we need to add even more pieces of information in >> the future, will it stay so? Can "[some-random-string]" easily be >> identified as a list-objects-filter by those who do not care >> particularly about promisor remotes (e.g. those who wanted to see >> the URL to tell multiple remote nicknames apart) when the line has >> even more piece of information in the future? >> >> At some point, we'd need to either (1) stop adding too many details >> to avoid cluttering the output line, or (2) start labeling each >> piece of information to make it easy for the readers to identify >> which one is which [*]. We need to ask ourselves why now is not >> that "some point" already. >> >> Side note: and the strategy to add new pieces of information >> need to take the same approach between the two, and that is why >> we need "what is the plan to add new pieces of information?" >> answered. > I am sorry if I failed to explain you what I really wanted to mean. > Yes, I forgot to answer the last question which is "When we > want to add new kinds of information other than the URL and the > list-objects-filter, what is our plan to add them?". > > So let me answer this now. As `-v` flag gives a kind of overall summary > of the remotes, users expect that the most important and most basic > information should be listed in the output of `remote -v`. So, there > may be some other more important informations in the future that we > have to add to `remote -v` output. In that case, method (1) would not > be a great idea I think (unless a new flag has been created). method > (2) is better. When I use the `git remote` command, I use the -vv variant to what what I need, i.e. its more than `-v`, so maybe adding an extra `--show-partial-filter` option may be necessary (with a more compact name ;-). There will also be a similar desire (IIUC) to match the sparse/cone mode repos to their remotes, i.e. to remind a user that what is held at the remote isn't the same as held locally. > >>> (i.e. which are promisor remotes and which are not) one by one. If the >>> user try to search for the promisor remotes in the config file, he/she >>> have to go through the other configuration settings (irrelevant to him/her >>> at that time) to reach the `[remote]` section. Isn't it? >> Sorry, but the question does not make much sense to me. Why is a >> piece of information you get from "git config" irrelevant if you get >> it in order to figure out what you want to know, i.e. what promisor >> remote do we rely on? > Let me explain what I really meant here - I am guessing that you have no > problem with the upper part of that para. > > If we forget about my proposed change, there are two possible ways to find > out the info about promisor remotes - > (1) Use `git config --get remote.<remote-name>.partialCloneFilter` > > This command gives an output only if <remote-name> is a promisor > remote. So in case the user forget which one is a promisor > remote, he/she has to try this command with each and every > <remote-name> to find out which is/are the promisor remote(s). I hear your pain here. I had the same issue with the branch description. (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15058844/print-branch-description). It's the same 'extract from config' problem. ```You can display the branch description using a git config command. To show all branch descriptions, I have the alias brshow = config --get-regexp 'branch.*.description' , and for the current HEAD I have brshow1 = !git config --get "branch.$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD).description". ``` so it is possible to generalise the config query, if hard to discover. <https://stackoverflow.com/a/15062356/717355> > > (2) Open the git config file (either manually or by running `git > config --edit` > > In this case, the user has to go through all the settings until > the [remote "<remote-name>"] section is found. E.g. let's say > below is the config file - > > [core] > repositoryformatversion = 0 > filemode = true > bare = false > logallrefupdates = true > ignorecase = true > precomposeunicode = true > [remote "upstream"] > url = https://github.com/git/git.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/upstream/* > [branch "master"] > remote = upstream > merge = refs/heads/master > [remote "origin"] > url = https://github.com/Abhra303/git.git > fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* > partialCloneFilter = blob:none > > To find out whether "origin" is promisor or not, he has to go > to the [remote "origin"] section. Here all the configuations > under `[core]`, `[remote "upstream"]` and `[branch "master"] > are irrelevant to him/her at that time (because he/she is not > interested to know about those configuration settings at that > time). > > The proposed change is simpler compared to the above as it lists down all > the remotes along with their list-objects-filter. Another point is that > it's important for an user to know which one is a promisor remote and what > filter type they use. If we go with the current implementation the output > would be let's say - > origin <remote-url> (fetch) > origin <remote-url> (push) > upstream <remote-url> (fetch) > upstream <remote-url> (push) > > By seeing the above output anyone may assume that all the remotes are > normal remotes. If the user now try to run `git pull origin` and suddenly > he/she discover that some blobs are not downloaded. He/she run the above > mentioned (1) command and find that this is a promisor remote! > > Here `remote -v` didn't warn the user about the origin remote being an > promisor remote. Instead it makes him/her assume that all are normal > remotes. Providing only these three info (i.e. <remote-name>, <remote-url> > and <direction>) is not sufficient - it only shows the half of the picture. > > >> The question is "what can readers achieve by having this extra >> information in 'remote -v' output". Do you have to duck the >> question because you cannot answer in a simple sentence, and instead >> readers must read reams of documentation pages? I doubt it would be >> that obscure. > Sorry, I misunderstood that section of your first comment. I think > I hopefully answered this question in the above portion of this comment. > Providing only the three information about remotes is not sufficient > as it do not distinguish between promisor remotes and normal remotes. > In that sense, it will add simplicity and the user would be much more > clear about the remotes(i.e. which is promisor remote and which is not). > >> I wanted to like the patch, the changed text is simple enough, but >> quite honestly, the lack of clarity in the answers to the most basic >> "why do we want this? what is this good for? how does this help the >> users?" questions, I am not yet succeeding to do so. > My bad! Hope I am now able to answer all the questions you asked. Let > me know if you still struggle to get my point. > > Thanks :)
