Carlos MartÃn Nieto <cmn@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> A patch to make --quiet not to squelch the patch output, and instead
>> silence any progress output would be a good addition.
>
> Something like this? I guess the only use case would be together with
> -o.
When the user gives -q without giving -o to a new or an empty directory,
the user deserves to get what was asked on the command line, so I wouldn't
worry about this particular case. For a casual user, it is perfectly a
sensible thing to say "I'll eyeball; I don't have other files whose names
begin with [0-9]{4}- in my working tree" and I don't think we need safety
against doing that.
I however wonder if we should audit other commands in the "log" family to
see what they do when "--quiet" is given. I know what they do currently
is whatever they happen to do for a nonsense request, and in no way is a
designed behaviour. We simply did never think about that case.
For example, what should "git show master^2 next^2" do with "--quiet"? Of
course the standard way to squelch diff output in the output from "show"
is to use "-s" (coming from "git diff-tree"), but giving "--quiet" should
at least be a no-op.
--
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