Re: [PATCH v3] ls-files: introduce "--format" option

>
> Hi ZheNing
> > [...]
> > +It is possible to print in a custom format by using the `--format`
> > +option, which is able to interpolate different fields using
> > +a `%(fieldname)` notation. For example, if you only care about the
> > +"objectname" and "path" fields, you can execute with a specific
> > +"--format" like
> > +
> > +     git ls-files --format='%(objectname) %(path)'
> > +
> > +FIELD NAMES
> > +-----------
> > +Various values from structured fields can be used to interpolate
> > +into the resulting output. For each outputting line, the following
> > +names can be used:
> > +
> > +objectmode::
> > +     The mode of the file which is in the index.
> > +objectname::
> > +     The name of the file which is in the index.
> > +stage::
> > +     The stage of the file which is in the index.
> > +eol::
> > +     The <eolinfo> and <eolattr> of files both in the
> > +     index and the work-tree.
>
> Looking at the test for this option I think it needs more work, why
> should --format arbitrarily append a tab to the end of the output? - the
> user should be able to specify a separator if they want one as part of
> the format string. Also I'm not sure why there is so much whitespace in
> the output.
>

> If %(flags) is going to be useful then I think we need to think about
> how they are printed and document that. At the moment they are printed
> as a hexadecimal number which is fine for debugging but probably not
> going to be useful for something like --format. I think printing
> documented symbolic names with some kind of separator (a comma maybe)
> between them is probably more useful
>

>  > [...]
> > +test_expect_success 'git ls-files --format eol' '
> > +     printf "i/lf    w/lf    attr/                 \t\n" >expect &&
> > +     printf "i/lf    w/lf    attr/                 \t\n" >>expect &&
> > +     git ls-files --format="%(eol)" --eol >actual &&
>
> I'm not sure why this is passing --eol as well as --format='%(eol)' -
> shouldn't that combination of flags be an error?
>