From: Johannes Sixt Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:17:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 28/34] run_command_opt(): optionally hide stderr when the command succeeds Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20161214130640.ginadvry7wor3tkc@sigill.intra.peff.net> Am 14.12.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Jeff King: > 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