Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] ls-tree.c: support `--oid-only` option for "git-ls-tree"

> Teng Long <dyroneteng@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Sometimes, we only want to get the objects from output of `ls-tree`
>> and commands like `sed` or `cut` is usually used to intercept the
>> origin output to achieve this purpose in practical.
>
> "in practical" -> "in practice".
>
> That's true and that is exactly this plumbing command was designed
> to be used.
>
>> This commit supply an option names `--oid-only` to let `git ls-tree`
>> only print out the OID of the object. `--oid-only` and `--name-only`
>> are mutually exclusive in use.
>
>     Teach the "--oid-only" option to tell the command to only show
>     the object name, just like "--name-only" option tells the
>     command to only show the path component, for each entry.  These
>     two options are mutually exclusive.
>
> perhaps?
>
> The above leaves "mode-only" and "type-only".  I wonder if it is a
> better design to add just one new option, --hide-fields, and make
> the existing --name-only into a synonym to
>
>     git ls-tree --hide-fields=mode,type,object $T
>
> which would mean we do not need to end up with four mutually
> exclusive commands, and anybody who wants to only see object names
> can do
>
>     git ls-tree --hide-fields=mode,type,file $T
>
> Note: the above uses the terminology in the OUTPUT FORMAT section;
> if we want to use "name" instead of "file", I am perfectly OK with
> it, but then we should update the documentation to match.
>
> Come to think of it, I think "--show-fields" may work even better
> than "--hide-fields".  We can use it to get rid of the "--long"
> option:
>
>     git ls-tree --show-fields=mode,type,object,size,file $T
>
> would be equivelent to
>
>     git ls-tree --long $T
>
> The field order may need to be thought through, especially when "-z"
> output is not being used.  We may need a rule to require "file" to
> be at the end, if exists, or even simpler rule "you can choose which
> fields are shown but the order they come out is not affected" (i.e.
> "--show-fields=mode,type" and "--show-fields=type,mode" give the
> same output).
>
> I am OK if we started with "only a single field allowed" and extend
> it to support multiple fields later (until that happens, we cannot
> emulate the "--long" output, though).  Then we do not have to answer
> two tricky questions, what to do with the output order, and what
> field separators are used in the output.