Thanks for your review! > Another factor is the default format that these two commands use which > differs. I would heavily lean towards using the format exposed by `git > show-ref` because it doesn't require us to hit the ODB, and thus it is > way more efficient. This has bitten me quite often already. Thanks for your reminder! I will explain this output format in my next proposal, and I agree that we should adopt the `git show-ref` format for its superior efficiency. > I don't think it would, both are orthogonal to one another. I don't > think people _only_ want to format or _only_ want to filter. Quite > often, they'll want to do both at the same time. > On the topic of filtering and formatting, I plan to implement these as basic functions that work together seamlessly. In other words, the filter and format functionalities will be integrated (without being exposed as separate options) so that users can combine them as needed. I will submit another email for further discussion about options. > > 2. The performance could be worse than `git-for-each-ref`. > > Why is that? git-for-each-ref(1) already knows to filter and format, so > I'd expect the performance to be roughly the same. In fact, I think we > would be able to improve performance if we changed the default format as > mentioned above. > I am concerned that iterating over all available options might introduce additional overhead. > > I don't think this plan would make sense as it would mean that current > users of git-for-each-ref(1) wouldn't be able to migrate. > Finally, in light of your feedback and Karthik’s, I have decided that Approach 1 will be my final plan. Thanks ! Zheng Yuting
