Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Yeah, I'd be perfectly happy to rename this to `--format=porcelain`. >> I'll wait for the Review Club that discusses this patch set tomorrow and >> will send a new version with that change afterwards if nobody disagrees. >> >> Patrick > > We had some discussion during review club about this, where the idea of > using "--porcelain" came up because many commands use that when > switching into a machine readable format. > > In addition, this format not only changes the output but also moves it > from being on stderr to stdout, which is a hint that the intended usage > of the command is now a little different. A little different from what? I do not think the answer would be "other program's --porcelain mode", as sending them to stdout would be one of the things that make the output easier for programs to parse, so it does sound like very much in the same spirit as "git status --porcelain" where its output format gets tweaked to be more machine friendly. The output with "--porcelain" option enabled tend to be less human friendly and the distinction between Porcelain (for humans) and plumbing (for scripts) is reversed in the use of the word there---it started as "this is the option for those who write Porcelain commands to use", but still it is not a very good name for the option. I am perfectly OK if the plan is to uniformly use --output-format (or something equally more descriptive) and migrate and deprecate the "--porcelain" option away from existing commands. Thanks.
