On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > And it is not like if the whole thing was thrown away. For example I > > think messages like > > > > remote: Writing 1234 objects. > > > > are good messages to have in a log file even when progress display is > > filtered out. So the sideband demultiplexing is useful in that case as > > well. > > In that case, maybe we should define a separate sideband for > progress display? Currently #1 (payload) and #3 (emergency > exit) are distinct but #2 corresponds to stderr which has info > messages and progress noise all mixed up. And how would the remote end distinguish how to split the info from the progress noise? Teaching pack-object about another file descriptor? And what happen if pack-object is run locally in that case? How does that solve the issue with servers (currently all of them) that don't know about the new sideband? I think life might just be so much simpler if we just decide right now that progress noise is defined as a string ending witha '\r', and that we just toss it locally when we don't want progress noise. As a bonus this is even fully backward compatible with all existing servers. Nicolas - 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