Re: [RFC/REVIEW 0/7] fixups/suggestions/musings for tl/ls-tree-oid-only

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote on Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:56:56 +0100
>
>> I don't think all of these need to be squashed or fixed up into the
>> proposed series, but are just various small issues/questions I came 
>> with while reviewing it. Brief notes 
>>
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (7):
>> ...
>
>
> I looked these commits in "RFC/REVIEW" and I think each one is a good
> improvement. So next, to make the squashes or keep it alone  I think
> maybe it's like: 
>
>
> (1) ls-tree tests: add tests for --name-status
>
>     They are new test codes that better than old ones. 
>
>     Action: Keep it individually.
>
> (2) ls-tree tests: exhaustively test fast & slow path for --format
>
>     They are better test codes for the correctness formatting mechanism.
>
>     Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: introduce "--format" option'
>
> (3) ls-tree: remove dead labels
>
>     They remove the dead labels, and you mentioned it should be squash into
>     the commit which brought them in.
>     
>     Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: slightly refactor `show_tree()`'
>
> (4) ls-tree: remove unused "MODE_UNSPECIFIED"
>
>     As the subject describes, remove unused "MODE_UNSPECIFIED" and make
>     "mutx_option" to a better name "mutx_option". It's the prepared commit
>     for 'ls-tree: remove FIELD_*, just use MODE_*''
>
>     Action: Squash into commit 'ls-tree: slightly refactor `show_tree()`'
>
> (5) ls-tree: detect and error on --name-only --name-status
>
>     Optimized the incompatible detecting tests codes in "t/t3103-ls-tree-misc.sh"
>     and add a new 'MODE_NAME_STATUS'.
>
>     Action: Keep it individually.
>
> (6) ls-tree: remove FIELD_*, just use MODE_*
>
>     Using MODE directlly and make a format-mode mappings for fast-path detection.
>
>     Action: Keep it individually.
>
> (7) ls-tree: split up "fast path" callbacks
>
>     Expand "ls_tree_cmdmode_format" structure for each formats with the specific 
>     show function and split up the current show functions name.
>
>     Action: Keep it individually.

> This is the way I try to continue this work, please let me know if I understand you wrong.
>
> I look forward to your reply and I will decide the next step based on the reply. If we have
> a consistent understanding of the next actions, I will try to make a pull request to your
> Git fork first. If there is no problem, I will continue to send patches to the mailing list.