On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Richardson < bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:34:32PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I agree with both of you. > > I could suggest something but I'm afraid it will be difficult to have a > > consensus between a "quiet tool" and a "double check verbose tool". > > As it is a really critical piece of code, I think we should have a > meeting > > with a technical steering comittee ;) > > ... or we can add an option: -q or -v ? Debate is open :D > > > Yes, the whole future of the project could hinge on this decision :-) > Eheh :-) > Ok, my suggestion is both! > 1) Have the default (in case of no errors), be a single line print out at > the end > stating number of files scanned > 2) If "-q" flag specified, skip this > 3) If "-v" flag specified, do current behaviour with a line per file. > Ok for me. -- David Marchand
