On 23/10/2019 04:48, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I'm slightly wary of changing the output of plumbing commands >>> like this. If a script wants progress output it can already get >>> it by passing --verbose. With this change a script that does not >>> want that output now has to pass --no-verbose. >> >> If a script is calling this, then won't stderr not be a terminal window, and >> isatty(2) return 0? > > Unless the script tries to capture the error output and react > differently depending on the error message from the plumbing (which > is not localized), iow most of the time, standard error stream is > left unredirected and likely to be connected to the terminal if the > script is driven from a terminal command line. > >> Or, if the script is run with stderr passing through to >> a terminal, then the user would see progress while running the script, which >> seems like a side-effect but not one that will cause a broken script. > > It will show unwanted output to the end users, no? That is the > complaint about having to pass --no-verbose, if I understand > correctly, if the script does not want to show the progress output. Yes that was my objection. Best Wishes Phillip
