Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> > I feel this is the wrong way round. `>/dev/null` may sound very intuitive >> > to you, but this feature is Windows only. Guess three times how intuitive >> > it sounds to Windows developers to write `>/dev/null` if you want to >> > suppress output... >> >> It would be just as intuitive to write '2>&1' for dup-redirection, > > No. You misunderstand. I was mainly concerned with the `/dev/null`. Every > Windows developer knows what `>file.txt` means, and many know what > `2>error.txt` means. But `/dev/null` is not Windows, period. Actually I did know that much. If I was correct in assuming that "2>&1" is just as foreign as ">/dev/null", then we should be shunning "2>&1" just like we shun ">/dev/null". That was all I meant to say. Are you saying "2>&1" is just as likely to be known as ">file.txt" and my assumption of foreignness of "2>&1" was incorrect? Side note: would ">NUL" look more familiar, I wonder, and can stand for ">/dev/null" for the target audience? > ... It is so not > Windows that Git itself translates it to `NUL` (which you Linux die-hards > won't have a clue about, I would wager a bet). Ah, you lost your bet. When can I collect ;-)?
