Re: Improving the git remote command

> David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > We have some internal scripts at Disney Animation that rely on "git remote"
> > output so I would vote for #3 personally as well.
> 
> I take it that you mean you would vote _against_ #3 which will break
> the expectation.
> 
> > I know that "git config" is porcelain, and I can get remote.(.*).url,
> > but that's not obvious and I highly doubt that anyone does that.
> 
> Perhaps that is something worth fixing.
> 
> > What if we said that "git remote list --porcelain" == "git remote"
> > and then just leave "git remote" output as-is so that we don't have to
> > have a flag day when we break people's scripts?
> 
> I suspect that it is not likely a workable solution.  The commands
> being Porcelain by definition means that people aimed to make their
> output consumable by humans, and the current "git remote", which may
> be what your script happens to use, is not by design the best
> representation of the information for all the script writers to
> want to call _good_.
> 
> If we were to do "git remote list", I'd imagine it would be far more
> useful to have --format="<format specifiers>" option so that you can
> do something like
> 
> 	git remote list --format="%(name) %(url) (%(direction))"
> 
> Then scripts can explicitly ask for what they want and have less
> chance of getting broken (I say "less" because what %(specifier)
> stands for could be changed either to fix mistakes or by mistake).
> 
> >> > Having said that, my preference is 
> >> > 
> >> >     0. Do nothing, but document the "default to listing" better if
> >> >        needed.
> >> > 
> >> > and then 2. above, and then 1.
> >> 
> >> Yeah, I'd agree with that.
> >