On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:36:20AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > If we want to print "Done" in porcelain mode when there are no > > errors. (In dry run mode, ref-update-errors should not be > > considered as errors, but the opposite should be regarded as errors). > > Hmph, should we allow dry-run to deliberately behave differently > from the for-real execution? Wouldn't it discard the primary value > of dry-run, to see if it is likely that an operation will succeed > (or fail)? I agree, I don't think that this is a good idea. "--dry-run" should behave as close as possible to the same command executed without that flag, the only change should be that the underlying operation is not actually applied in the end. But other than that both the output and the return values should ideally match exactly so that the user can actually tell what would happen. Patrick
