Re: [PATCH v3] ls-files: introduce "--format" option

From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>,
	ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>,
	ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ls-files: introduce "--format" option
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:20:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <220624.86pmiyi498.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqv8sr1iex.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, Jun 23 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Thanks for re-rolling, having taken a look a closer look at the tests
>> I'm concerned about the output format for some of the specifiers, see
>> below.
>
> Thanks for raising these issues.  I agree with you on many of them.
> In addition to what you covered ....
>
>>> +path::
>>> +	The pathname of the file which is in the index.
>> I think that for all these it might be clearer to say "recorded in the
>> index" rather than "of the file which is in the index"
>
> I think we would call this "name".  The name of the existing option
> that controls how they are shown is "--full-name", not "--full-path",
> for example.

To the extent that we got this wrong it was me in 455923e0a15 (ls-tree:
introduce "--format" option, 2022-03-23), but given that we have that I
think it makes sense to have this be consistent with ls-tree.

FWIW ls-tree also uses "name" options, but its docs talked about
"<path>", so I thought it was more helpful to pick that.

We also say that we will "show the full path names" in that
documentation.