From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] diff --no-index: test for pager after option parsing Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:09:18 -0800 Message-ID: <7vfxjwf041.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1231286163-9422-1-git-send-email-trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 07 01:10:58 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LKM0a-0000eB-RG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:10:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756620AbZAGAJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755949AbZAGAJZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:25 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:48288 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756514AbZAGAJY (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3098E7C2; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB1958E7C0; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1231286163-9422-1-git-send-email-trast@student.ethz.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:56:03 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 704D9D3A-DC4F-11DD-8B49-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thomas Rast writes: > I noticed this while working on the earlier patch for diff --no-index. > It seems like the right thing to do (and passes tests), but I don't > have a clue about git's normal setup sequences, so I'm flagging it > RFC. I think the patch itself makes sense from the logic flow point of view. But I wonder if it still makes a difference in real life.idn't we stop reporting the exit status from the pager some time ago?