Re: [PATCH v3] ls-files: introduce "--format" option
- From
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 24, 2022, 13:20 UTC
- Message-ID
- <220624.86pmiyi498.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqv8sr1iex.fsf@gitster.g>
On Thu, Jun 23 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes: > >> Thanks for re-rolling, having taken a look a closer look at the tests >> I'm concerned about the output format for some of the specifiers, see >> below. > > Thanks for raising these issues. I agree with you on many of them. > In addition to what you covered .... > >>> +path:: >>> + The pathname of the file which is in the index. >> I think that for all these it might be clearer to say "recorded in the >> index" rather than "of the file which is in the index" > > I think we would call this "name". The name of the existing option > that controls how they are shown is "--full-name", not "--full-path", > for example.
To the extent that we got this wrong it was me in 455923e0a15 (ls-tree: introduce "--format" option, 2022-03-23), but given that we have that I think it makes sense to have this be consistent with ls-tree.
FWIW ls-tree also uses "name" options, but its docs talked about "<path>", so I thought it was more helpful to pick that.
We also say that we will "show the full path names" in that documentation.