Re: [PATCH 1/2] ls-files: add %(objecttype) atom to format option

>
> "ZheNing Hu via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: ZheNing Hu <adlternative@gmail.com>
> >
> > Sometimes users may want to align the feature of
> > `git ls-files --format` with that of `git ls-tree --format`,
> > but the %(objecttype) atom is missing in the format option
> > of git ls-files compared to git ls-tree.
>
> "Sometimes users may want to" sounds a bit awkward; even if no user
> notices that the two very similar commands supports different subset
> of the vocabulary without good reason, wouldn't we want to align the
> feature set of these two commands?
>
> > Therefore, the %(objecttype) atom is added to the format option
> > of git ls-files, which can be used to obtain the object type
> > of the file which is recorded in the index.
>
> And from that point of view, this conclusion has a bit more to think
> about.  Is the %(objecttype) singled out here only because somebody
> happened to have complained on the list, or did somebody went into
> the list of supported atoms between two commands and considered what
> is missing from one but is supported by the other, and concluded that
> only adding this one atom to ls-files would make the two consistent?
>
> I would not complain if it were the former, but it must be explained
> here in the proposed log message.  That would encourage others to do
> a follow-on work to complete the comparison to fill the gaps on the
> both sides.  If it were the former, saying so explicitly in the
> proposed log message will save others---otherwise they may try to do
> the comparison themselves only to find that this was the last one
> remaining discrepancy.
>