Re: [PATCH v4] add-patch: response to unknown command

From: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2024, 23:46 UTC
Message-ID: <305296f1-975b-41b9-968c-3984d8056196@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8r11dr64.fsf@gitster.g>

Show 10 quoted lines

> Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 02:05:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > I am assuming that this change will precede my series.
> 
> No, this was merely "if we were to update the series I queued to my
> tree, the squashable fix may look like this", which you can use to
> update _your_ series if you want to.
>

I was not sure what was the expectation. In fact, I'm still not quite sure.

I am not sure about the change either.

The current options are:

	a.- make the test check for stderr and stdout, separatedly

	b.- fflush(stdout) in err

	c.- make err print to stdout

I suspect that similar tests for other commands would produce similar errors, so (a) seems like an easy fix but feels like kicking the can forward.

I'm not sure of the implications of (c). Perhaps moving current messages to stdout breaks some workflow out there? The other thread about disabling all hints has made me think.

The (b) option seems to me the less disturbing change, but it has not attracted attention.

There is even a (d) that is to go back to test just the new error message, not the whole output.

I will give it some thought.