On 10/22/2019 11:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> I'm slightly wary of changing the output of plumbing commands >>> like this. If a script wants progress output it can already get >>> it by passing --verbose. With this change a script that does not >>> want that output now has to pass --no-verbose. >> >> If a script is calling this, then won't stderr not be a terminal window, and >> isatty(2) return 0? > > Unless the script tries to capture the error output and react > differently depending on the error message from the plumbing (which > is not localized), iow most of the time, standard error stream is > left unredirected and likely to be connected to the terminal if the > script is driven from a terminal command line. > >> Or, if the script is run with stderr passing through to >> a terminal, then the user would see progress while running the script, which >> seems like a side-effect but not one that will cause a broken script. > > It will show unwanted output to the end users, no? That is the > complaint about having to pass --no-verbose, if I understand > correctly, if the script does not want to show the progress output.
I'm happy to have attempted the change and start this discussion. It sounds like this one patch could be ejected to no loss to the full series. Thanks, -Stolee
