Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] Porcelain Status V2

From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Jul 20, 2016, 19:27 UTC
Message-ID: <578FD0B1.9030709@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160720161543.GD24902@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 07/20/2016 12:15 PM, Jeff King wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> One final bit of food for thought.
>
> Just yesterday somebody asked me about renewing the old idea of using a
> more standardized format for machine-readable output, like --json.
> That's obviously something that would exist alongside the existing
> formats for compatibility, and it doesn't fundamentally change anything
> about adding a new format as your patches do (it just becomes yet
> another format).
>
> However I wanted to mention it in case you are intrigued by the idea,
> and would be interested in skipping porcelain-v2 entirely in favor of
> moving to something like json.
>
> A totally reasonable response is "haha no. Please stop moving the
> goalposts". I just wanted to throw it out there as an option (and in
> case you are interested, to let you think about it before any more work
> goes into this direction).

haha no.... :-)

Short term, I'd rather nail down what I have now (both content-wise and format-wise) and see how we like it. And have a follow-up task to look at the --state header we spoke of earlier. And save the JSON version as an independent task for later.

I understand the motivation for a JSON option (and have thought about it before) but I think it ought to be kept separate. At a higher-level, it seems like a JSON option would be an opportunity to start a project-wide conversation about formats, consistency, plumbing, and etc. A top-down conversation if you will about which commands will/won't get enhanced, legacy cruft that would not need to be converted, JSON style and naming and consistency issues, current best practices in the node/whatever community, and etc. I could be wrong, but this feels like a top-down feature conversation in a wider audience.

Jeff