Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>
> > I would suspect that this may be fine.
> >
> > "rev-parse --verify" makes sure the named object exists, but in this
> > case <at> {u} does not even name any object, does it?
>
> Hmph, but "rev-parse --verify no-such-branch" does *not* name any
> object, we would want to see it barf, and we probably would want to
> be able to squelch the message. So it is unclear if <at> {u} barfing is
> a good idea.
>
That was my counter-argument :) The "vibe" I get from rev-parse --verify
--quiet is that it should handle anything.
>
> What is the reason why it is inpractical to pass 'quiet' down the
> callchain?
>
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but wouldn't that mean changing the
signature of 9 different functions, and consequently all of their calls
throughout Git?
That's perhaps not a good argument. Who cares whether a diff is small or
large if it fixes a bug properly? But most (or all) of those functions
do not concern themselves with printing stuff so maybe an additional
"quiet?" argument would look foreign in most places and make the code
harder to read.
Øsse
--
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