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=-4.5 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 DB31F1F744 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752795AbcGTTaE (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:30:04 -0400 Received: from siwi.pair.com ([209.68.5.199]:23884 "EHLO siwi.pair.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751576AbcGTTaC (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:30:02 -0400 Received: from [10.160.15.137] (unknown [167.220.148.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by siwi.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B6A3845DC; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Porcelain Status V2 To: Jeff King , Jeff Hostetler References: <1468966258-11191-1-git-send-email-jeffhost@microsoft.com> <20160720161543.GD24902@sigill.intra.peff.net> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com From: Jeff Hostetler Message-ID: <578FD0B1.9030709@jeffhostetler.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:27:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160720161543.GD24902@sigill.intra.peff.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 07/20/2016 12:15 PM, Jeff King wrote: > One final bit of food for thought. > > Just yesterday somebody asked me about renewing the old idea of using a > more standardized format for machine-readable output, like --json. > That's obviously something that would exist alongside the existing > formats for compatibility, and it doesn't fundamentally change anything > about adding a new format as your patches do (it just becomes yet > another format). > > However I wanted to mention it in case you are intrigued by the idea, > and would be interested in skipping porcelain-v2 entirely in favor of > moving to something like json. > > 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. Jeff