"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025, at 17:56, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It is not like it is a crime to intarctively make use of a plumbing >> command, or we intentionally try to hide plumbing command from them >> by making it deliberately less accessible. "git cat-file commit X" >> may be handier than "git show -s X" for some people and that is not >> to be frowned upon. >> >> And what you call "might only be" is really the crucial thing to >> consider. If we want to keep a tool's output stable and machine >> readable, we need to mark it as "meant for Porcelain writers", and >> classifying the tool as plumbing is a pretty much established way to >> do so. > > Okay. I understand now. I forgot to mention one thing worth addressing in your message, though. Making the tool more discoverable. It is a valuable consideration. But I somehow think moving a tool between plumbing and Porcelain boundary is not the way to do so. There is a collection of "howto" articles in Documentation/howto/ that is meant to be the place to learn how to go from workflow and objective to tools. If you have a success story that your use of "git cherry" helped greatly what you wanted to achieve, it may be a good place to share it. Thanks.
