From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333EC1F4D7 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 18:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="lQFnp2nR"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1380458AbiEMShP (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2022 14:37:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36792 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1347818AbiEMShK (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2022 14:37:10 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 459DD38D9D for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 11:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B380E1248BB; Fri, 13 May 2022 14:37:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=seDbygEBHRTPBvDzMsK2KgqMg2nCCXeFd046Nqg2vTM=; b=lQFn p2nRC7X6D51y/pnpx1lq+t5S+aT+tnD7FrQwYMzdUJTalMxfeEmev2+aBTRIVjR3 WntHg8AxL3LALLL9a/lmuenfGMzDy4Uq0r/if7Wb0zGgpzi31G3eBuA2tWL9Oll3 1qJMKdX4CmOPJDjbTPP6HQBb6wY3OSVrm4l0bR4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0151248B9; Fri, 13 May 2022 14:37:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.83.65.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF18A1248B8; Fri, 13 May 2022 14:37:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Abhradeep Chakraborty Cc: Git , Taylor Blau , Philip Oakley , Philippe Blain Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] builtin/remote.c: teach `-v` to list filters for promisor remotes References: <20220513134946.1581-1-chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 11:37:04 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B061A6D6-D2EB-11EC-93DA-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Abhradeep Chakraborty writes: > Else you can drop the idea and suggest them to introduce a new flag > (depending on the situation). If you still have some doubt about my > PR i.e. if you can not determine which category my PR belongs to, I > can go with adding `show-partial-clone` flag. The downside would > be that `remote -v` will not give the full summary in case of partial > clone. If majority of partial-clone users find it unnecessary noise, then it may be an upside to give only reduced summary that is less than full that may be given by `remote -v -v`. Worse downside of adding it as an option is that it invites more options. It is less worse to add new ones to `remote -v -v` (or to `remote -v`, or not adding it at all) than adding another option, I would think. Perhaps tagged output that can be easier to parse would be better "extensible" output format for adding more random pieces of information than going tabular. I dunno.