> Quoting Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx>: > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress > > On 5/10/07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Quoting Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress > >> > >> On 5/10/07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >-static int git_tcp_connect_sock(char *host) > >> >+static int git_tcp_connect_sock(char *host, int flags) > >> > >> There is only one bit of flags ever used. What are the others for? > > > >Hmm, I thought it's easier to read > >git_tcp_connect_sock(host, NET_QUIET) > > It is easier to read. "int flags" isn't easier to understand. > > >> Why use negative logic? > >> What was wrong with plain "int verbose"? > > > >I want the default to report connections, and -q > >to silence them. Maybe "int quiet"? > > It depends. "Quiet" is negative, which automatically > makes the logic harder to follow (for humans, at least), > and you had to put negations all over git_tcp_connect, > exactly because the meaning is exactly the opposite to > what you need. > > >> What addresses were tried by connect? > > > >You are speaking about your patch reporting the IP on failure? > > Yes. Not on failure (not only). Every time an address is tried > to connect. Why not only on failure? IP addresses look ugly. > >I think it makes sense, but it's a separate issue, isn't it? > > You are just about to make git_tcp_connect verbose, > are you not? Only if the flag is set. So git-fetch without -q qill be more verbose - but it already spits out a fair amount of data on screen. -- MST - 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
