* Junio C Hamano (gitster@xxxxxxxxx) [100209 17:25]:
> Larry D'Anna <larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > @@ -1052,7 +1053,7 @@ int transport_push(struct transport *transport,
> > flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE);
> >
> > ret = transport->push_refs(transport, remote_refs, flags);
> > - err = push_had_errors(remote_refs);
> > + err = (pretend && porcelain) ? 0 : push_had_errors(remote_refs);
>
> Hmph, you are doing (rewritten in an easier to follow format)
>
> if (--dry-run && --porcelain)
> err = 0;
> else
> err = push_add_errors(remote_refs);
>
> here, which I think changes the semantics of what follows immediately
> after this hunk, namely:
>
> if (!quiet || err)
> print_push_status(transport->url, remote_refs,
> verbose | porcelain, porcelain,
> nonfastforward);
>
> Earlier, the logic said "even if you asked for --quiet, we would report if
> there is an error" but now you are changing the rule to "under --dry-run
> and --porcelain, --quiet means don't ever report the status, even when
> there are errors".
>
> I don't necessarily think it is a bad change, but in any case the semantic
> change is worth documenting.
Which version of the --quiet behavior do you want for the next version of this
series? My feeling is that "even if you asked for --quiet, we would report if
there is an error" is the best policy, even under --dry-run --porcelain.
--larry
--
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