From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (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 1626714F138 for ; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 16:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724258367; cv=none; b=anbjH+9dsshQtJ6KfI4End2y2ZQwnlSd9oCi09qWOd5SNCDJznFJSmvqBmCPaK5vMwSaAp23WUiYupOCvONWgZrX8WcYS/C6NibO/TcBOUiQ6QSA0B0boH+VkdcMb64jUyh17kGnuq+ULAkQBQfMeMUalKyTD9o9osUboV7ling= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724258367; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+7LnBQ+2T9paOzx70pe9+6aSve7W6oGjKcBONZrsTNU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bMDTva99j2bUFkrhFPxN1D5YFjqxV66fNMcd4HCX9GVbcvo2FbY9TIOjl+okcjzqHTAcvbj674eJJa5N0B8sXln0+NbTD5MKYYrgVvmzQLInXUk/ktRA8dGCMUCAOnSBV+Ny1NtdyQDpGgrnWp6MWqrFjSDMzrJ+QMBYxDfPPTU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=ocJePQcK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="ocJePQcK" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3072F624; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:39:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=+7LnBQ+2T9paOzx70pe9+6aSve7W6oGjKcBONZ rsTNU=; b=ocJePQcKIT5/peQWu/EEaenthQydrFmnSDm7WBI1BtWclpxtPe9z12 78xZ57H4/01gbWJxu/NuFjgRpLzNlkMI+ySqcWdq3CYMdRAj2yxua7Wy507lO9RI nMPhOP0P6BVr5zdiAlPaYt4JRA0M21fVKtDZQ0hdstIIOCkecwpUY= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624F62F623; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:39:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.94.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E97242F622; Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, ps@pks.im, james@jamesliu.io, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] [RFC] advice: refuse to output if stderr not TTY In-Reply-To: <20240821154001.GA506216@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:40:01 -0400") References: <20240821154001.GA506216@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:39:20 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: EB2B19E4-5FDB-11EF-8ED6-E92ED1CD468F-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > Playing devil's advocate for a moment: what about programs that read > stderr but intend to relay the output to the user? > > For example, programs running on the server side of a push are spawned > by receive-pack with their stderr fed into a muxer that ships it to the > client, who then dumps it to the user's terminal. Would we ever want to > see their advice? > > My guess is "conceivably yes", though I don't know of a specific example > (and in fact, I've seen the "your hook was ignored because it's not > executable" advice coming from a server, which was actually more of an > annoyance on the client side). Ah, I should have waited to think about the topic before reading what you wrote. Yes, this is a huge downside. > Looking over patch 7, I think the escape hatch for all of these cases > would be setting GIT_ADVICE=1. Which isn't too bad, but it does require > some action. I'm not sure if it is worth it (but then, I am not all that > sympathetic to the script you mentioned that was trying to be too clever > about parsing stderr). This too.