Thanks for your reply! > I would categorize '--sort' into a third subcategory. Filtering refers > to possible change in the size of the sample set. While sorting is more > of a presentation utility. > That’s a good idea, it makes my plan more clear. I will separate the “--filter” options into “--filter” and “--sort” so that users can clearly distinguish them. > This is indeed a special case which applies to both sorting and > filtering. Understood! > > You mean complex from the user perspective of having too many options or > from the implementation perspective. > > I think from the UX perspective, it is a good time to rethink usage and > need for the options you mentioned above. , for e.g. with '--format', do > we need to have '--tcl', `--shell` and `--perl`? > I think it’s important to discuss all available options, and I will submit another email for further discussion. > > 2. The performance could be worse than `git-for-each-ref`. > > > > Why would it be worse? The performance difference between > `git-for-each-ref(1)` and `git-show-ref(1)` stem from the formats they > use by default. > > $ hyperfine --shell=none --warmup=3 "git for-each-ref" "git show-ref" > Benchmark 1: git for-each-ref > Time (mean ± σ): 4.0 ms ± 0.6 ms [User: 1.9 ms, System: 1.9 ms] > Range (min … max): 3.0 ms … 5.7 ms 680 runs > > Benchmark 2: git show-ref > Time (mean ± σ): 2.9 ms ± 0.4 ms [User: 1.2 ms, System: 1.5 ms] > Range (min … max): 2.0 ms … 4.3 ms 909 runs > > Summary > git show-ref ran > 1.38 ± 0.28 times faster than git for-each-ref > > What I found interesting was that changing the format for > 'git-for-each-ref(1)' gives it a boost: > > $ hyperfine --shell=none --warmup=3 'git for-each-ref > --format="%(objectname) %(refname)"' "git show-ref" > Benchmark 1: git for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" > Time (mean ± σ): 2.4 ms ± 0.3 ms [User: 1.1 ms, System: 1.1 ms] > Range (min … max): 1.7 ms … 3.6 ms 1070 runs > > Benchmark 2: git show-ref > Time (mean ± σ): 2.9 ms ± 0.4 ms [User: 1.2 ms, System: 1.5 ms] > Range (min … max): 2.0 ms … 4.5 ms 833 runs > > Summary > git for-each-ref --format="%(objectname) %(refname)" ran > 1.20 ± 0.23 times faster than git show-ref > Thank you for the reminder. Once each option is implemented, I will test its performance to ensure that it maintains—or improves upon—the efficiency of the previous version. > > And what is the expectation that when you want to do both filtering and > formatting, would the user be expected to do `git refs filter | git refs > show`? Generally users want to combine both of these options. > > Also wasn't the idea to already implement `git-refs show` as a > standalone which simply shows what value a reference holds (without > derefence)? > > While I would think Approach 1 is the better option here, I'm also > seeing how it is complex, perhaps a good option to get started would be > to implement a simpler subcommand as a first case? Perhaps the > originally discussed `git refs show`? I agree that implementing `git-refs show` first would provide a solid foundation for other options. I will add these improvements in the next version of the proposal. Thanks! Zheng Yuting
