From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD3357875 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710193387; cv=none; b=LR3kJrbdNB425LnUmTmYMWc/sZfON9eYqn60QeZv2sDgmaS6OpQ2PFY74KHbnTgaCX6yQV3p26bhSwOXrqfbhXliPH0k4sy4scs3nBvpYZiLRxfLgwwI/CkqdDTgwDMg4mna9CHuDHumuqi3AszQoNJ6Hlh/waPgo8x0F+RFftw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710193387; c=relaxed/simple; bh=poecH1OBAHO/jOlfJliwjsXT0P4PBZBbliyfP/g0If8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gGl0PKcW0r+Pn+fXMT9xD1Mlt9YXmn7iVh1gDgU7mAV+NxAOLPXkYpKRrSWqpT52ttA+f5l/J+6yVkNJzGvBBK24IXwnSuUdebIqJ+TU+3csAFsYsASTwpOqAq6kiL912gEnFlEAYVK3r+v2kcUzb/aVjw0+yvYJGzYkbysRLLA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=WLktKj3B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="WLktKj3B" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C48B2EEA5; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:43:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=poecH1OBAHO/jOlfJliwjsXT0P4PBZBbliyfP/ g0If8=; b=WLktKj3BqA3a3EIqrV3EPXOPfoY3v3zsCJwclC7jt+I3QXoqYLUIie vdSU7sM62CRd0jL+yibqcsGcUyDKoOhYz46RurXYdlJr+QImK1ZTTnErOeflQ2ad i9sctFbmNlXs7ObU5xKMJjJZhZ9DRYMdUhKQfoHSWyTm8Fj4Um9ng= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3233A2EEA4; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:43:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.185.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B37C92EEA0; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:43:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cat-file: add %(objectmode) avoid verifying submodules' OIDs In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:55:59 +0000") References: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 55AB6C68-DFF0-11EE-A5CF-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" writes: > The cat-file --batch command is very valuable in server settings, but so far > it is missing a bit of functionality that would come in handy there. > > For example, it is sometimes necessary to determine the object mode of a > batch of tree objects' children. OK. It is somewhat unsatisfying that --batch/--batch-check lacks so much. Even with %(objectmode) its nature of one-object-at-a-time makes querying children of a large tree a chore, when you compare it with something like "cat-file -p HEAD:" that allows you to grab the needed information for all children with a single invocation. This is orthogonal to what the patch wants to do, which is to enrich the output side with more formatting, bit I wonder if we want to consider enriching the input side? e.g. instead of feeding just a single object name from the standard input of "cat-file --batch/--batch-check", perhaps a syntax can say "Here I have the object name for a tree-ish object, but please pretend that I gave you all the objects contained within it", or something? Thanks, will queue.