From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640041CFA9 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733261085; cv=none; b=dWYO0b81IUXMB727hngQgFst4/Yb47x9WIrOgMjMgrM1rVSdyrtm9BcwqrJ79fOqEzP18VYCcGByxRYh+mlWffmVI4NDS11S9z+LwS7nYva57fetu5rS9WO1iqmrIjT3dClXgTfhcdQMzVC2bZttFY9MFUBOpwwisUwoaETPwaA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733261085; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4juU5ZoNi85MQnl0rexY8eNgsRiE029PMsR+83N/Q2o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=I0JsTl1rCBw/JECdNCMlp7G4iDO5RBGSQ6WQmUt0H5zt6IGD/CEqzlh2bNnaJyxeSxKnPXvwmYehED1W1zLfO+xMYj273XAb/pMvmXE+gWztk1sbl5CqUTtPcbc8NcB7JxZ7s9Gf7A93+uXDpRxML4k/2eJxwG00Vq/6NYSaWuA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=FJQT92lX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="FJQT92lX" Received: (qmail 30702 invoked by uid 109); 3 Dec 2024 21:24:42 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=4juU5ZoNi85MQnl0rexY8eNgsRiE029PMsR+83N/Q2o=; b=FJQT92lXxLXlM5IbRUjSwlHewCzedWQM5YNWzuf0tTJs6dXuOlegq9daN5S3XB37GU8rNpt3JnigCl6z6+WEm0V/1dKaXMVyUYmDqQFpe2n9VDnhekpJiLvrJdrbZFFHYhg+VVwDOhI7hTV+Ozgwc9r6juNgUtHRoL3vfI8OJF4+VO3o8Z7UnrRMyTrczhZKkUlHtNDHkOxu3b694kvMJHg0dmtsVnsBKHlVon/RtGBL8pHwlXmd7InvUYXBvfHKReypmzIIul+HiS0cWB77mt6drbyM+ndoP7t7GVyJK7yMa/04pIleqN5yxRp/9ucH5kk9lvwsivNltFodi5n4kg== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2024 21:24:42 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 10376 invoked by uid 111); 3 Dec 2024 21:24:41 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Dec 2024 16:24:41 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:24:41 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Philip Yung , Taylor Blau , Y5 via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] diff: setup pager only before diff contents truly ready Message-ID: <20241203212441.GA1424493@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20241019211938.GA589728@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20241021190045.GB1219228@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20241125113105.GA1070162@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 02:33:02PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It seems that this topic is waiting for a reroll? > > > > I think we could go either way. I outlined a few further possible steps, > > but there is no need to hold up this first step. The only question is > > whether or not to add a single test to show off and protect the > > improvement. > > Hmph, a few messages upthread > > (Ugh, why do some MUAs or mail providers use such an overly long > message ID, Yuck) was where I got the impression that we were > waiting for a reroll. Yeah, I think Philip was offering to add some tests. Since he has been quiet since, I do not have a strong opinion on whether we should just take it as-is or let it go unless he comes back. > I am not all that convinced that sprinkling setup_diff_pager() call > all over the place is a good idea from longer-term maintainability's > sake to begin with, by the way. What problem are we really solving? > Folks who run "git diff --no-such-option" see "behaviour inconsistency"? > All I see is "error: invalid option: --invalid" followed by a help message, > which is quite expected. I think it is just about not starting the pager when there is no useful output produced. Depending on your pager config, it is a little nicer if we avoid it for a one-liner error. E.g., I do not use "-F", so "git diff foo bar" drops me into the pager with a single error line. -Peff