From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 06:13:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] builtin/repo: introduce stats subcommand
Message-ID: <aOyYWQ5mU4zc1oCH@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <lnk4zvu5zgokd3p5lxnl2nwbqu3fi3yer753tr2f2jaknrtb3h@fcbjvvu6irtc>

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 09:34:54AM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote:
> On 25/10/10 08:53AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 07:42:40PM -0500, Justin Tobler wrote:
> > > Thinking about this some more, a single "stats" command is indeed rather
> > > vauge. Furthermore, as Junio mentioned, there could be other aspects of
> > > a repository that we want to display stats for in the future.
> > > 
> > > Since the goal of this command is to surface info about a repositories
> > > structure, may we should instead call this command `git repo structure`?
> > > Or something else along those lines that in more specific and related to
> > > goal of the command?
> > 
> > Some alternatives that come to my mind:
> > 
> >   - inspect
> >   - analyze
> >   - scan
> >   - survey
> >   - measure
> > 
> > I don't have any specific preference. What I like though is that those
> > are verbs, which makes it a bit more natural to use them.
> 
> If we want the theme of this command to be the repository's
> structure/shape and have a name that matches this scope, I'm not sure
> any of the above examples would move us closer to that. Aligning the
> command name to its scope is beneficial if we forsee the potential to
> introduce additional subcommands for git-repo(1) that target other
> aspects of a repository.

Fair.

> From my perspective, the main question is: should git-repo-stats be a
> generic command that can eventual provides all sorts of different stats?
> Or should it stick to repository structure/shape information? I think
> I'm currently leaning towards the latter.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards the latter, as well.

Patrick