Show 44 quoted lines
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> > Another factor is the default format that these two commands use which
> > differs. I would heavily lean towards using the format exposed by `git
> > show-ref` because it doesn't require us to hit the ODB, and thus it is
> > way more efficient. This has bitten me quite often already.
>
> Thanks for your reminder! I will explain this output format in my next
> proposal, and I agree that we should adopt the `git show-ref` format for
> its superior efficiency.
>
> > I don't think it would, both are orthogonal to one another. I don't
> > think people _only_ want to format or _only_ want to filter. Quite
> > often, they'll want to do both at the same time.
> >
>
> On the topic of filtering and formatting, I plan to implement these as
> basic functions that work together seamlessly. In other words, the filter
> and format functionalities will be integrated (without being exposed as
> separate options) so that users can combine them as needed. I will
> submit another email for further discussion about options.
>
> > > 2. The performance could be worse than `git-for-each-ref`.
> >
> > Why is that? git-for-each-ref(1) already knows to filter and format, so
> > I'd expect the performance to be roughly the same. In fact, I think we
> > would be able to improve performance if we changed the default format as
> > mentioned above.
> >
>
> I am concerned that iterating over all available options might introduce
> additional overhead.
>
> >
> > I don't think this plan would make sense as it would mean that current
> > users of git-for-each-ref(1) wouldn't be able to migrate.
> >
>
> Finally, in light of your feedback and Karthik’s, I have decided that
> Approach 1 will be my final plan.
>
> Thanks !
> Zheng Yuting
Yuting Zheng <05zyt30@gmail.com>