On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:32 +0200, Carlos MartÃn Nieto wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:17:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Carlos MartÃn Nieto <cmn@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > How does this patch look? > > > > It does not fix "git show master~10 master^..master", but instead of just > > hijacking and ignoring the --quiet option like your patch did, it actually > > flips the option the user wanted to affect from the command line. > > It's fine if that's what we want to do. The reason I blocked --quiet > instead of converting it to -s is because it seemed less surprising > than passing --quiet and still getting output (if I pass --quiet, I'd > expect the application to really be quiet), which doesn't happen in > the commands that accept --quiet on purpose. Then again, the log > family doesn't make any sense without any output, so if you argue that > way, --quiet means "quieter", which makes the interface less > consistent, but I don't feel that strongly about it There's a lot of stuff out there for which --quiet does not imply --silent. I side with Junio on the solution. -- -Drew Northup ________________________________________________ "As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?" -John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59 -- 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