Hi Karthik, On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 12:53 PM karthik nayak <karthik.188@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eric Ju <eric.peijian@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > [snip] > > > @@ -314,7 +323,10 @@ newline. The available atoms are: > > line) are output in place of the `%(rest)` atom. > > > > If no format is specified, the default format is `%(objectname) > > -%(objecttype) %(objectsize)`. > > +%(objecttype) %(objectsize)`, except for `remote-object-info` commands which use > > +`%(objectname) %(objectsize)` for now because "%(objecttype)" is not supported yet. > > +WARNING: When "%(objecttype)" is supported, the default format WILL be unified, so > > +DO NOT RELY on the current the default format to stay the same!!! > > This seems like a planned breakage, wouldn't it make more sense to > implement %(objecttype) first? I don't think it's fair to say it's a planned breakage. For example if a default specifies what is displayed on the command line and if what's displayed has an informational purpose there, then changing the default to add more information is not really a breakage. Here we make it clear that a possible breakage (in case the feature wasn't used for informational purposes only for example) could easily be avoided by not relying on the default, but instead specifying exactly the desired output format. And yeah ideally both %(objecttype) and %(objectsize) should be implemented first, but on the other hand sending short patch series and growing some features step by step is a nicer approach in some ways than sending big patch series that are hard to review. So I think it's fair here to start with just %(objectsize) and leave %(objecttype) for a future patch series. Except for this I agree with the comments in your review of the v4. Thanks!
