Re: git show and the --quiet option

From: Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu>
Date: Jun 2, 2011, 18:26 UTC
Message-ID: <1307039169.28941.35.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20110530093259.GA2990@bee.lab.cmartin.tk>

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:32 +0200, Carlos Martín Nieto wrote:

> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:17:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@elego.de> writes:
> >

Show 14 quoted lines

> > How does this patch look?
> > 
> > It does not fix "git show master~10 master^..master", but instead of just
> > hijacking and ignoring the --quiet option like your patch did, it actually
> > flips the option the user wanted to affect from the command line.
> 
> It's fine if that's what we want to do. The reason I blocked --quiet
> instead of converting it to -s is because it seemed less surprising
> than passing --quiet and still getting output (if I pass --quiet, I'd
> expect the application to really be quiet), which doesn't happen in
> the commands that accept --quiet on purpose. Then again, the log
> family doesn't make any sense without any output, so if you argue that
> way, --quiet means "quieter", which makes the interface less
> consistent, but I don't feel that strongly about it

There's a lot of stuff out there for which --quiet does not imply --silent. I side with Junio on the solution.

-- 
-Drew Northup
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59