Re: [RFC PATCH v1] telemetry design overview (part 1)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 9, 2018, 06:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20180609065635.GE30224@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <87bmck4gip.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 08:31:58AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 1) I really don't see the basis for this argument that they'd need to
>    patch it out, they're not patching out e.g. GIT_TRACE now, which has
>    all the same sort of concerns, it's just a format that's more of a
>    hassle to parse than this proposed format.
> 
> 2) I think you and Johannes are just seeing the "telemetry" part of
>    this, but if you look past that all this *really* is is "GIT_TRACE
>    facility that doesn't suck to parse".

So that actually takes me to another question, which is: instead of introducing a new "telemetry" feature, could we make GIT_TRACE suck less to parse?

E.g., could we have a flag or environment variable to have the existing traces output JSON? I guess right now they're inherently free-form via trace_printf, so it would involve adding some structured interface calls. Which is more or less what I guess JeffH's proposed feature to look like.

-Peff