Re: [PATCH v5 13/17] read-tree: show progress by default

> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> I'm slightly wary of changing the output of plumbing commands
>>> like this. If a script wants progress output it can already get
>>> it by passing --verbose. With this change a script that does not
>>> want that output now has to pass --no-verbose.
>>
>> If a script is calling this, then won't stderr not be a terminal window, and
>> isatty(2) return 0?
> 
> Unless the script tries to capture the error output and react
> differently depending on the error message from the plumbing (which
> is not localized), iow most of the time, standard error stream is
> left unredirected and likely to be connected to the terminal if the
> script is driven from a terminal command line.
> 
>> Or, if the script is run with stderr passing through to
>> a terminal, then the user would see progress while running the script, which
>> seems like a side-effect but not one that will cause a broken script.
> 
> It will show unwanted output to the end users, no?  That is the
> complaint about having to pass --no-verbose, if I understand
> correctly, if the script does not want to show the progress output.