Hi Stolee On 23/10/2019 13:50, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 10/22/2019 11:48 PM, 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. > > I'm happy to have attempted the change and start this discussion. It > sounds like this one patch could be ejected to no loss to the full > series. Thanks. Enabling --verbose by default on a tty might have made sense originally but I'm worried doing it now will lead to confusing output where read-tree is a small part of a larger operation and the script was written on the assumption that read-tree will be quiet. Best Wishes Phillip > Thanks, > -Stolee >
