On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 11:09:20AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: > I guess one big reason for Ævar's suggestion about using --[no-]progress > as the signal for progress is that we can make --progress the default > when isatty(2) is true. We should not do the same for --verbose. Yep, agreed. > Looking at other examples, I see that 'fsck' has --verbose imply > --no-progress, probably because the verbose output would write lines > that become interleaved with the progress indicators (and those lines > act as progress in themselves). Not sure if that's the right choice in > this case, too. I think for `git remote rename` it won't matter, since it doesn't do anything with the `-v` option anyway (so there's no output to clobber in the first place). Thanks, Taylor
