From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: how to suppress progress percentage in git-push Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:05:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20091123170547.GC26996@machine.or.cz> References: <20091122145352.GA3941@debian.b2j> <20091123145959.GA13138@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20091123155043.GA28963@machine.or.cz> <20091123164319.GA23011@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bill lam , Nicolas Pitre , git To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 23 18:06:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NCcMd-0003iq-GR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:06:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752570AbZKWRFn (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:05:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752451AbZKWRFn (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:05:43 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:53741 "EHLO machine.or.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751593AbZKWRFm (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:05:42 -0500 Received: by machine.or.cz (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5C31F125A0EC; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:05:47 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091123164319.GA23011@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:43:19AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:50:43PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:00:00AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > > The patch for (1) would look something like what's below. It's simpler, > > > but it does change the semantics; anyone who was relying on > > > --all-progress to turn on progress unconditionally would need to now > > > also use --progress. However, turning on progress unconditionally is > > > usually an error (the except is if you are piping output in real-time to > > > the user and need to overcome the isatty check). > > > > I'm actually doing exactly that in the mirrorproj.cgi of Girocco, so I > > would be unhappy if I would have to go through creating ptys or whatever > > now. Maybe conditioning this by an environment variable? > > You wouldn't need to do anything that drastic. You would just need to > pass "--progress --all-progress" instead of only --all-progress. But you > have provided the data point that such a change would break at least one > user. > > We could also leave --all-progress as-is and add new option to mean "if > you are already doing progress, do all progress". Hmm, maybe I'm confused - I just call git remote update and don't pass any progress switches - would your change still affect me? Can I pass --progress to `git remote update`? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves. That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth