Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 于2022年6月10日周五 03:51写道： > > "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> > I read these two lines to mean "git ls-files -s --object-only" does > not even give me the stage information, but that would make the > command completely useless, so I am assuming that is not what you > meant to say. The same comment applies for resolve-undo, which is > merely "what 'ls-files -s' may have given before you resolved". > > If you borrowed a feature from another existing command, say that > explicitly, which will allow your commit to gain confidence by > reviewers and future readers by showing that you care about overall > consistency in the system. > > Add a new option `--object-only` that omits the mode and > filename from the output, taking inspiration from the option > with the same name in the `git ls-tree` command. > > or something like that, perhaps. > Yes, this message will be better. I think it omits not only mode, filename, but also tag, stage, eol info, debug message. > How does/should this interact with the `--deduplicate` option? > > If we are not giving stages and truly giving only object names > (which I doubt is what we want, by the way), then we can and should > deduplicate the output when the option is given. If we have two > identical blobs at different paths, or two identical blobs at the > same path but at different stages, shouldn't we get only a single > copy of output for that blob, as we are not showing paths nor > stages, right? > I have think about it for a long time, I think deduplicate is used for removing duplicates entries which caused by one path can have different stage. But we now care about a output format just like %(objectname), if we need to deduplicate it, when we use --format="%(objectname) %(path)" later, do we need to deduplicate its output too? I think we should disable --deduplicate when we are using --object-only. > How does/should this behave when --stage is not given? > > I have a suspicion that this whole thing is misdesigned. Instead of > making it piggy back on --stage, don't you want to make it an > independent option? I.e. > > git ls-files --object-only > > with no other option would behave like > > git ls-files -s | sed -e 's/^[0-6]* \([0-9a-f]*\) .*/\1/' > > and it is an error to combine it with -s or --deduplicate. If the > purpose is to learn the set of objects registered in the index, then > it might even make sense to make it an equivalent to > > git ls-files -s | > sed -e 's/^[0-6]* \([0-9a-f]*\) .*/\1/' | > sort -u > > as duplicates or order of the entries is no use for such a use > case. > > It entirely depends on WHY you want to find object names, and that > is why I asked it much earlier in this message. > My origin requirement is to do a app which can move one file to another file in a bare git-repo, so I need to get first file object-name for second file to update-index. It can parsed by the app of course, but I think such kind of work left to git itself can help other app programers. Maybe you are right that --object-only or --format should not be sub-option of --stage or --resolve-undo, I will think about how to implement it later. > And I do not think it makes any sense to give resolve-undo > information without paths nor stages at all. Please do not tie this > with that mode. > > In short > > - this probably is better done as a separate independent mode > "--object-only", rather than a piggy-back feature on top of > existing other features like "-s" and "--resolve-undo". > > - the new mode should be made mutually incompatible with "-s" and > "--resolve-undo". There may be other options that this should be > incompatible, like "--tag" and "--full-name". > By the way, if we need --format for git ls-files, which atoms should we keep? I think those atoms are undoubtedly necessary to keep %(tag) %(objectmode) %(objectname) %(stage) %(path) git ls-files --stage just like git ls-file --format="%(tag)%(obejctmode) %(objectname) %(stage)\t%(path)" but for these follow atoms, I am not sure if we need them? %(eofinfo) %(debug) %(eol) %(ctime) %(ctime:sec) %(ctime:nsec) %(mtime) %(mtime:sec) %(mtime:nsec) %(dev) %(ino) %(uid) %(gid) %(size) %(flags) Thanks
