From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B6F1F744 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752492AbcGTU56 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:57:58 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:47785 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751762AbcGTU55 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:57:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 29102 invoked by uid 102); 20 Jul 2016 20:57:57 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:57:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 24747 invoked by uid 107); 20 Jul 2016 20:58:20 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.1.3) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:58:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:57:53 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:57:53 -0600 From: Jeff King To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: Jeff Hostetler , git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Porcelain Status V2 Message-ID: <20160720205753.GC578@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1468966258-11191-1-git-send-email-jeffhost@microsoft.com> <20160720161543.GD24902@sigill.intra.peff.net> <578FD0B1.9030709@jeffhostetler.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <578FD0B1.9030709@jeffhostetler.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:27:45PM -0400, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > A totally reasonable response is "haha no. Please stop moving the > > goalposts". I just wanted to throw it out there as an option (and in > > case you are interested, to let you think about it before any more work > > goes into this direction). > > haha no.... :-) > > Short term, I'd rather nail down what I have now (both content-wise > and format-wise) and see how we like it. And have a follow-up task > to look at the --state header we spoke of earlier. And save the JSON > version as an independent task for later. > > I understand the motivation for a JSON option (and have thought > about it before) but I think it ought to be kept separate. > At a higher-level, it seems like a JSON option would be an > opportunity to start a project-wide conversation about formats, > consistency, plumbing, and etc. A top-down conversation if you > will about which commands will/won't get enhanced, legacy cruft > that would not need to be converted, JSON style and naming and > consistency issues, current best practices in the node/whatever > community, and etc. I could be wrong, but this feels like a > top-down feature conversation in a wider audience. I agree with everything you've said here. If we add JSON, we'd want to do it everywhere: lists of commits, lists of refs, status output, etc. I mentioned that somebody had asked me about it recently; they are working on a git client and finding that libgit2 is not serving their needs well, so they'd like to shell out to git more, and wanted to have a standard way to get the data back in. -Peff