On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Nicolas Pitre 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.
Before everybody starts believing everybody agrees with this I'll have
to throw a tile in the pond.
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. git-add is a less important command than
git-init-db or git-commit _conceptually_. You can do multiple git-add
in whatever order, even repeatedly, and it won't change the outcome.
It is "conceptually lightweight". But git-init-db is really important.
Without it you just can't do anything. It should give the user the
impression that something did actually happen, especially since this is
the git comand any new git user is most likely to use first. Saying
back "git repository initialized" tells the user "OK you can start now".
Saying nothing might just leave the user wondering if everything is
actually fine.
how about makeing it silent on sucess unless the output is a tty? that way you
don't mess up scripts with the 'it worked' message and you still reassure the
user that something actually happened.
David Lang
-
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