On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 12:19, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:10:33PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > It suggests the *kinds* of objects that are part of the extension, but
> > lists the objects of that kind regardless of dependency. I read
> > Michael suggested (and I agree) to restrict the objects (not kinds) to
> > actually be a part of the extension. (And not for object kinds.)
>
> Yeah, that's what I meant. Now, if Vignesh does not want to extend
> that, that's fine for me as well at the end on second thought, as this
> involves much more code for each DROP path depending on the object
> type involved.
>
> Adding the object names after DROP/ADD is useful on its own, and we
> already have some completion once the object type is specified, so
> simpler is perhaps just better here.
I too felt keeping it simpler is better. How about using the simple
first version of patch itself?
Regards,
Vignesh
