Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > One concern I currently have with this quoting approach is that it is a > bit more challenging to machine parse compared to something like using a > null byte to delimit between missing info. One option is, in a followup > series, introduce a git-for-each-ref(1) style format syntax. Maybe > something like: `--missing=print-info:%(path)%00%(type)`. I'm curious if > anyone may have thoughts around this. Would it be so bad if we said that in -z mode with --info option, each record is terminated with two NUL bytes, and elements on a list of var=value pairs have a single NUL in between, or something silly like that? The point is to get away with just a fixed format, without any customization.
