On 13-08-20 01:57 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortma...@windriver.com> writes: > >> TL;DR -- "git apply --reject" implies verbose, but the similar >> "git apply --check" does not, which seems inconsistent. > > Hmmm, I am of two minds. From purely idealistic point of view, I > can see why defaulting both to non-verbose may look a more > attractive way to go, but I have my reservations that is more than > the usual change-aversion.
OK, so given your feedback, how do you feel about a patch to the documentation that indicates to use "-v" in combination with the "--check" to get equivalent "patch --dry-run" behaviour? If that had existed, I'd have not gone rummaging around in the source, so that should be good enough to help others avoid the same... P. -- > > Historically, "check" was primarily meant to see if the patch is > applicable cleanly in scripts, and we never thought it would make > any sense to make it verbose by default. > > On the other hand, the operation of "reject", which was a much later > invention, was primarily meant to be observed by humans to see how > the patch failed to cleanly apply and where, to help them decide > where to look in the target to wiggle the rejected hunk into (even > when it is driven from a script). It did not make much sense to > squelch its output. > > In addition, because "check" is an idempotent operation that does > not touch anything in the index or the working tree, running with > "check" and then "check verbose" is possible if somebody runs it > without verbose and then decides later that s/he wants to see the > details. But "reject" does touch the working tree files with > applicable hunks, so after a quiet "reject", there is no way to see > the verbose output like you can with "check". > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html