From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: how to suppress progress percentage in git-push Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:19 -0500 Message-ID: <20091123164319.GA23011@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20091122145352.GA3941@debian.b2j> <20091123145959.GA13138@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20091123155043.GA28963@machine.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: bill lam , Nicolas Pitre , git To: Petr Baudis X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 23 17:43:31 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 1NCc0g-0001br-KA for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:43:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754551AbZKWQnP (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754077AbZKWQnP (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:15 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:54053 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754009AbZKWQnO (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:14 -0500 Received: (qmail 3384 invoked by uid 107); 23 Nov 2009 16:47:44 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:47:44 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:43:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091123155043.GA28963@machine.or.cz> 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 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". -Peff