Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > It also breaks from our normal behavior of not printing > > anything if the command was successful. > I really don't think this is a good rule. > > NOte that I'm not against commands that are silent by default. I really > think that git-add should remain silent on success by default when > successful. > > But the rule of thumb should be about the importance of the action > performed by the command. > But git-init-db is really important. A very reasonable argument, butchered for my evil quoting needs. :-) If we want to keep letting git-init-db output something, then the output should be a lot more meaningful to the average English speaking new Git user than "defaulting to local storage area". E.g.: $ git init-db Initialized empty Git repository in .git/ would probably make a lot more sense to new and expert users alike. I'm fine with the above form, I just think that the message we have now could benefit from being sent to the land from which there is no return, or be rewritten... BTW, I almost also submitted a patch to remove the "Committing initial tree ..." message in git-commit-tree, but thought twice about it as committing an initial tree is sort of an important difference from normal activity that we should highlight it somehow... -- Shawn. - 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