On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 12:19, Michael Paquier <mich...@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
