From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:10:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] builtin/replace: teach listing using short, medium or full formats
Message-ID: <xmqqppojctsh.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD1hdNE__+bVtKegChBT4u3Rx7NEzBYYkdEmUwfFLLpkzg@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I think this last one might be useful for people replacing objects
>>> with objects that have another type.
>>
>> ... which IIUC is strongly discouraged---didn't you have to tighten
>> it recently?
>>
>> And that makes it "useful primarily for debugging" unusual
>> situations.
>
> Ok, so would you prefer the following:
>
> - NAME_ONLY_REPLACE_FMT and "--format=name_only" instead of
> SHORT_REPLACE_FMT and "--format=short"
>
> - NAME_AND_VALUE_REPLACE_FMT and "--format=name_and_value" instead of
> MEDIUM_REPLACE_FMT and "--format=medium"
>
> - DEBUG_REPLACE_FMT and "--format=debug" instead of FULL _REPLACE_FMT
> and "--format=full"

The end-user facing names are probably fine with short, medium,
full, as long as what they show are clearly explained in the
end-user documentation (patch 10/10 covers this).

I have a hunch that we may later regret "full" when somebody wants
to add even fuller information, though. It might be better spelled
"long" instead;

I'd rather see REPLACE_FMT_ as a prefix, not suffix.  Do we use
common suffix for enum values elsewhere?