Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Tay Ray Chuan wrote: >> >>> This series makes git-clone follow the "argument convention" of >>> git-pack-objects, where the option --progress is used to force reporting >>> of reporting. This was previously done with -v/--verbose. >> >> No objections from my side, although you might want to advertise more that >> this is a change in behavior. (Meaning in the release notes) > > Indeed, -v/--verbose to force reporting of progress was done sometime > last year (Thu Oct 9 2008) so there may be scripts/applications > dependent on this option. > > Junio, do you have any advice on this front? [1/4] sounds like a sane thing to do regardless of the remainder of the series, as stderr is where we write the progress output anyway. [2/4] looks trivially correct. It is unclear what impact [3/4] has. I can read "With this patch, transport can pay attention to the verbose option given from the end user and act more verbosely, which was not something they couldn't do before", but what is the practical difference our existing users would see? IOW, which transports are silent without this patch even when the user gives -v from the command line? And continuing the theme to separate the "verbosity" and the "progress" into two separate switches, and push them down to the transport layer by [3/4], [4/4] sounds like a logical conclusion. I however wonder if it is of lessor impact if we only added --progress but without removing the progress from -v. Is there a downside? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html