From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vandiver Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow --quiet option to git remote, particularly for `git remote update` Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:23:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1260169742-sup-9991@utwig> References: <1260057623-28960-1-git-send-email-alex@chmrr.net> <7vd42soo2p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Dec 07 08:23:22 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 1NHXwH-0001Gc-9B for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:23:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758003AbZLGHXI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 02:23:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757980AbZLGHXI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 02:23:08 -0500 Received: from chmrr.net ([209.67.253.66]:40175 "EHLO utwig.chmrr.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757667AbZLGHXH (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 02:23:07 -0500 Received: from chmrr by utwig.chmrr.net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NHXw9-0000nw-19; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:23:13 -0500 In-reply-to: <7vd42soo2p.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Sup/git Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: At Sat Dec 05 21:04:14 -0500 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Alex Vandiver writes: > > ... > > "git remote prune [-n | --dry-run] ", > > - "git remote [-v | --verbose] update [-p | --prune] [group | remote]", > > + "git remote [-v | --verbose] [-q | --quiet] update [-p | --prune] [group]", Hm, I hadn't noticed that I'd changed "[group | remote]" to "[group]". I think this is due to a mismerge on my part -- apologies. As another data point, `git fetch` describes this as "[ | ]". > Three issues to consider: > > - shouldn't we use the same typography, i.e. ? > > - should we say _if_ we are not going to say |? > > - should we keep it as | to make it clear that only this > subcommand allows the group nickname? > > The first two are easy and I expect the answers to be both yes. The third > one needs some studying and further thought. > > - is "remote update" the only one that takes group nickname? My quick skim of the code says "yes" -- the other commands only deal with single remotes at a time, and prune is oblivious to groups. > - should "remote update" the only one? e.g. does "remote prune" also > take group? if not, shouldn't it? Properly, it "ought" to, though I don't see much utility over `git remote fetch --prune groupname`. Probably at the same time, the parallel pruning codepaths in builtin-fetch.c:prune_refs() and builtin-remote.c:prune_remote() should be unified. - Alex -- Networking -- only one letter away from not working