RE: preparing for 2.34.1

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> > > The quickest workaround for this is probably to special-case the
> > > editor
> > > `echo`:
> >
> > "GIT_EDITOR=: git cmd" would also be a common trick people would use
> > to bypass editor and take whatever is given as an initial template.
> 
> GIT_EDITOR=: is not a problem because of
> https://github.com/git/git/blob/v2.34.0/editor.c#L59:
> 
> 	if (strcmp(editor, ":")) {
> 		[...]
> 		term_fail = save_term(1);
> 		if (start_command(&p) < 0) {
> 			if (!term_fail)
> 				restore_term();
> 			[...]
> 		}
> 
> 		[...]
> 		if (!term_fail)
> 			restore_term();
> 		[...]
> 	}
> 
> > > However, I could imagine that other scenarios call for an editor
> > > that _also_ does not run in the terminal, and where also no real
> > > terminal is available for saving and restoring.
> > >
> > > I was tempted to suggest an `isatty(2)`, but that probably comes
> > > with its own problems, too.
> >
> > I think isatty(2) is pretty much our synonym to "are we talking to an
> > end-user sitting in front of the terminal".  Mostly we use it as a way
> > to control the progress bars, and use of editor on terminal would be
> > in line with these existing uses.
> 
> Indeed, I think that isatty(2) is a better indicator than isatty(1). We
> sometimes _do_ redirect the output of, say, `git commit`, to capture the
> commit hash that was generated. We typically do not redirect stderr,