On Wed, Jun 15 2022, ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget wrote:
> From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> --object-only is an alias for --format=%(objectname),
> which output objectname of index entries, taking
> inspiration from the option with the same name in
> the `git ls-tree` command.
>
> --object-only cannot be used with --format, and -s, -o,
> -k, --resolve-undo, --deduplicate, --debug.
>
> Signed-off-by: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/git-ls-files.txt | 8 +++++++-
> builtin/ls-files.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> t/t3013-ls-files-format.sh | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> index b22860ec8c0..c3f46bb821b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-ls-files.txt
> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
> [-c|--cached] [-d|--deleted] [-o|--others] [-i|--|ignored]
> [-s|--stage] [-u|--unmerged] [-k|--|killed] [-m|--modified]
> [--directory [--no-empty-directory]] [--eol]
> - [--deduplicate]
> + [--deduplicate] [--object-only]
> [-x <pattern>|--exclude=<pattern>]
> [-X <file>|--exclude-from=<file>]
> [--exclude-per-directory=<file>]
> @@ -199,6 +199,12 @@ followed by the ("attr/<eolattr>").
> interpolates to `\0` (NUL), `%09` to `\t` (TAB) and %0a to `\n` (LF).
> --format cannot be combined with `-s`, `-o`, `-k`, `--resolve-undo`,
> `--debug`.
> +
> +--object-only::
> + List only names of the objects, one per line. This is equivalent
> + to specifying `--format='%(objectname)'`. Cannot be combined with
> + `--format=<format>`.
> +
> \--::
> Do not interpret any more arguments as options.
>
> diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c
> index 9dd6c55eeb9..4ac8f34baac 100644
> --- a/builtin/ls-files.c
> +++ b/builtin/ls-files.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,27 @@ static const char *tag_modified = "";
> static const char *tag_skip_worktree = "";
> static const char *tag_resolve_undo = "";
>
> +static enum ls_files_cmdmode {
> + MODE_DEFAULT = 0,
> + MODE_OBJECT_ONLY,
> +} ls_files_cmdmode;
> +
> +struct ls_files_cmdmodee_to_fmt {
> + enum ls_files_cmdmode mode;
> + const char *const fmt;
> +};
> +
> +static struct ls_files_cmdmodee_to_fmt ls_files_cmdmode_format[] = {
> + {
> + .mode = MODE_DEFAULT,
> + .fmt = NULL,
> + },
> + {
> + .mode = MODE_OBJECT_ONLY,
> + .fmt = "%(objectname)",
> + },
> +};
[...snip...]
This code all looks OK from skimming it, and is substantially copied
from builtin/ls-tree.c (which is good).
But I wonder as in that case whether having such an alias is worth it at
all, especially since in the case of ls-files (unlike ls-tree) we don't
start out with various --just-the-X-field type options, this is the
first one.
So I *really* like that you took my suggestion of "why not a --format"
from a previous round, but given the above for ls-files in particular is
it really worth it to have this extra code just to type:
--object-only
Instead of:
--format="%(objectname)"
So, maybe, and I'm not set against it, but I think it's worth
re-evaluating in this case.
In particular because the part of ls-tree's code is missing here where
we "format optimize", i.e. we take a form like:
--format="%(objectname)"
And dispatch it to the more optimized special function, instead of the
generic strbuf_expand(), whereas in this case it's the other way around,
the option is just an alias for --format.
