From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 CA16415534E for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714082156; cv=none; b=MATI9ul+6IA1ZPL45iwTgU0IqVDUXuyXiZUlCGp5IBQYgB9kkJRiSCLI/vwLXjt4PbKerkj7nKSzTtPm/bbEWzG2omiivR+f4Gys0/sVmjbm1zqz2leM07dPXzYCLmMHsVFwbkVPunXZP8DhusZko/I+odRqZIADS4XusJLehL0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714082156; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Hk0FQPTL45YKAXmfaQCoU7J6BXP9dQirrvhaghAN5hI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PlbcKA4VuYkP3ssRUo7ofwmdB1/rSE7Ki4KQAa8D5+zaL54puuR5UrnFN53wGweNyILe+qbrPUVSpYo8SVgxD3T1ctahNoRMLzvzybZ/nCZOpdvXkLgyPnl0z7bmY6UVxfsbAazj1HrBldKDUrO9CkizZZ2ONArrbhZFG3na8Uk= 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=l3PZMVMT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="l3PZMVMT" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4936E259EE; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:55:54 -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=Hk0FQPTL45YKAXmfaQCoU7J6BXP9dQirrvhagh AN5hI=; b=l3PZMVMTVHzggohQV8siK7A6OrOkyuDbvLMADD25vt5N/AD9Y31uRa yBNTC7yFKXdRZDbTC/9ix3tSwKC8Wgm2TdZOivHAmlq+0Hwfas2ySpv3p6pLJDPC 4n108ByJ5z650MdVqj5XxC5YaHtfK3YvMyysW08xH4H2q4VBGT+Hg= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417A4259ED; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:55:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8BA2B259EC; Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:55:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Karthik Nayak Cc: Jeff King , chris.torek@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, ps@pks.im Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] refs: add symref support to 'git-update-ref' In-Reply-To: (Karthik Nayak's message of "Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:14:34 -0700") References: <20240412095908.1134387-1-knayak@gitlab.com> <20240423212818.574123-1-knayak@gitlab.com> <20240423220308.GC1172807@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:55:48 -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: 94853820-034E-11EF-96D3-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Karthik Nayak writes: >> IOW, we should add support for operation modes other than "--stdin" >> as well, shouldn't we? >> >> Thanks. > > That's a good point, I was thinking of something like this too, but > didn't want to bloat this series. Would it make sense to add this > functionality in a follow up series with the cleanup that Patrick > mentioned [1] too? Going multi-step is usually a preferred approach but we have to be sure that we do not have to retract the way earlier steps gave our users when we move to later steps. "Earlier we said that your commands should look like this, but now you have to give your commands differently" is absolutely what we want to avoid. So, "in this iteration, you can use this enhanced feature only via the "--stdin" mode, but we promise we will make the same available on the command line" is perfectly fine. You may need to retitle the topic to clarify the scope of each iteration, though. Thansk.