Re: [PATCH v2 28/34] run_command_opt(): optionally hide stderr when the command succeeds

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Dec 14, 2016, 19:17 UTC
Message-ID: <f4a72743-3488-3466-5b9f-0dacec102a54@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161214130640.ginadvry7wor3tkc@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Am 14.12.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Jeff King:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:53:23AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 09:34:20AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to see what it would look like if we make it the caller's
>>> responsibility to throw away stderr. The patch is below, as fixup
>>> of patch 29/34. The change is gross, but the end result is not that
>>> bad, though not really a delightful read, either, mostly due to the
>>> strange cleanup semantics of the start_command/finish_command combo,
>>> so... I dunno.

The cleanup semantics of start_command and finish_command are not that strange as I thought first. I just hadn't looked well enough.

>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion on the patches under discussion, but here
>> are a few pointers on the run-command interface:
>> [...]

> And here is a patch representing my suggestions, on top of yours. Not
> tested beyond "make test".

Thank you, that looks way better.

If there is agreement that this approach is preferable, I think we can have patches on top of the series; they would be orthogonal and do not have to take hostage of it. (And it looks like I won't be able to follow up until later this week[end].)

-- Hannes