On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> 
> > And it is not like if the whole thing was thrown away.  For example I 
> > think messages like
> >
> > 	remote: Writing 1234 objects.
> >
> > are good messages to have in a log file even when progress display is 
> > filtered out.  So the sideband demultiplexing is useful in that case as 
> > well.
> 
> In that case, maybe we should define a separate sideband for
> progress display?  Currently #1 (payload) and #3 (emergency
> exit) are distinct but #2 corresponds to stderr which has info
> messages and progress noise all mixed up.

And how would the remote end distinguish how to split the info from the 
progress noise?  Teaching pack-object about another file descriptor?
And what happen if pack-object is run locally in that case?

How does that solve the issue with servers (currently all of them) that 
don't know about the new sideband?

I think life might just be so much simpler if we just decide right now 
that progress noise is defined as a string ending witha '\r', and that 
we just toss it locally when we don't want progress noise.  As a bonus 
this is even fully backward compatible with all existing servers.


Nicolas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html