On 4/27/2023 3:58 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 01:23:12PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Furthermore, I think that `--[output-]format` has the advantage that you > don't need to handle priorities or mutual exclusion of different options > that all apply to the reference format. To a user, it is not immediately > obvious what `git fetch --format=compact --porcelain` would do, and > which of both options ultimately get respected. But that's likely only > true for future commands, because any migration would create the same > kind of ambiguity for preexisting commands. > > If we were to also migrate preexisting code to use `--[output-]format` > then I'd argue that `--output-format` is likely the better name, mostly > because it is less likely to be ambiguous compared to `--format`. The > latter could e.g. easily confused with `--object-format`. > > So I think I'll stick with `--output-format` for the time being. > I agree. I think using --output-format and migrating existing commands that have --porcelain to use --output-format is good. I'm not sure whether to keep using --output-format=porcelain or whether to use a different term there. I definitely think avoiding confusion with --format is good, and I don't think its too much of a burden to have the longer --output-format as the option name. Thanks, Jake > Patrick
