> But would ou mind if this addition of yours were instead:
>
> if (opts->ungroup) {
> if (opts->duplicate_output)
> BUG("duplicate_output and ungroup are incompatible with each other")
> }
I don't see why not -- will change.
> > @@ -1645,14 +1648,21 @@ static void pp_buffer_stderr(struct parallel_processes *pp,
> > for (size_t i = 0; i < opts->processes; i++) {
> > if (pp->children[i].state == GIT_CP_WORKING &&
> > pp->pfd[i].revents & (POLLIN | POLLHUP)) {
> > - int n = strbuf_read_once(&pp->children[i].err,
> > - pp->children[i].process.err, 0);
> > + ssize_t n = strbuf_read_once(&pp->children[i].err,
> > + pp->children[i].process.err, 0);
>
> This s/int/ssize_t/ change is a good on, but not mentioned in the commit
> message. Maybe worth splitting out?
I'll call this and the style change out in the commit message instead of
splitting it out.
> And why is this thing that wants to prove to us that we're capturing the
> output wanting to strip successive newlines?
I added it as a sanity check originally, but you're right that this is
unnecessary. Thanks for your comments on the other stylistic nits. I've
gone ahead and fixed them all.
