From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] receive-pack: send pack-processing stderr over sideband Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:40:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20120921174000.GA20896@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120921053057.GA9768@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120921053455.GB9863@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v7grn8gnv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120921170539.GA19707@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vtxur70fv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Sep 21 19:40:14 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TF7D4-0004l8-BI for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:40:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932268Ab2IURkD (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:40:03 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:53504 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932122Ab2IURkC (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:40:02 -0400 Received: (qmail 4499 invoked by uid 107); 21 Sep 2012 17:40:28 -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/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:40:28 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:40:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vtxur70fv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:25:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > However, this does make things more consistent with upload-pack, which > > connects the stderr of pack-objects to sideband (which it must to handle > > progress). Furthermore, many of the messages from receive-pack are > > handled by rp_error, which sends to the sideband. So if you were > > monitoring your git purely by trying to capture stderr, you were already > > only getting a fraction of the real data. > > The comments were not meant as a rejection notice ;-) Just to see if > some server operators have input on the matter. I know. But your comment made me second-guess a little whether anybody would be inadvertently hurt, but thinking it through and writing it out helped convince myself that it's the right thing to do. One of the hardest parts of working on a mature software project is not just thinking about what you want to do, but thinking about what everyone else wants to do (or is doing). So it never hurts to double-check your assumptions in such a case, and I don't mind working through these "what ifs" even if they end in us doing the original thing. I hope you do not mind reading them too much. :) > I personally do not think tee-ing the error output is worth it; it > would be reasonably simple to arrange, and the server operators who > want it can ask later if that is need. Agreed. -Peff