On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 9:05 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (2) With git-worktree being four or five years old, for > backward-compatibility concerns, I worry that "that ship has sailed", > where 'that' is the freedom to relocate those status-like messages > from stdout to stderr. I don't want to break tooling which exists > around git-worktree. > > I'd be happy to be wrong on the second point -- indeed, git-worktree > is still marked "experimental" in the man-page, but that may not mean > anything this late in the game -- and submit a patch which places > git-worktree's status-like messages on stderr instead of stdout. > Thoughts? If that ship has indeed sailed, then perhaps the best and safest thing to do is admit that git-worktree is an outlier in terms of sending status-like messages to stdout, and just sprinkle the necessary fflush(stdout) around in builtin/worktree.c and live with that localized ugliness. Thoughts?
