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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339601F4B4 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390515AbgJLQOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:14:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:56438 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390043AbgJLQOh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:14:37 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562E4F694C; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:14:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=awg5/iarTlkhNQngt1BhLJpqHK0=; b=KzgNrV Yb/Qv511fzScPXmIl7i4F+qT69bRIBvftq83e+HGJAVHk6Hq5HciaFNTGGS0DdKJ ZU+otLTJ+abga9pQx6COC/WnRM63Ri8MGIvAD/2+qQPXJ1fWUfns9W1Y0hmMu3F1 MelYsjkXxHhjyL1QosZiRWm0sNgzl6gMHXGtY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=KisLBBJWO26kXzmcHTvUAaobtg1TSpyV HXIv7KKp7ecgYV0sf3yR1WSbipJBmiOt4HMgyZIbA2enxX9mp68bKDELyYBOXhyx ITlxA7B98ly/j79l0MN/4dQfwEju57Z8FtqYvNrw+j6+pgLHvipdKTG/d/qHybaR 42PVbcM9E58= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD1BF694B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:14:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C32CF6948; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:14:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Robert Karszniewicz , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] log: add log.showStat configuration variable References: <20201008162015.23898-1-avoidr@posteo.de> <20201011095916.GA14933@HP> <1f53a7d8-6aa5-e1c7-ecb9-b99a37500034@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:14:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1f53a7d8-6aa5-e1c7-ecb9-b99a37500034@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:50:35 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 036D7E1C-0CA6-11EB-B7AA-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Derrick Stolee writes: >> I worried about that, too. But I think the initial step was already in >> 2015, when stash.showStat and stash.showPatch were added. No flood of >> options happened since then? I was actually surprised about it, too, >> that it took so long until someone wanted to have showStat for show and >> log, too. > > I'm not sure these examples will help your case. > > Does 'stash' have more things that would be beneficial to show > every time? If no, then 'stash' is much more specialized than > 'show' and 'log' which have many more options. If yes, then this > is exactly what we want to avoid happening: an incomplete set of > config options that are tailored to a small subset of options. Well said---I do not have anything more to add to that point that 'stash' is not a very good example to mimic.