From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D491E1F953 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 23:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1353899AbhLAX7s (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:59:48 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f49.google.com ([209.85.216.49]:36722 "EHLO mail-pj1-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344023AbhLAX7s (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:59:48 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f49.google.com with SMTP id n15-20020a17090a160f00b001a75089daa3so1029580pja.1 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 15:56:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mKiFSLcEj7oTyImE34GhB9IxqH6ypToU8QuY7KpgQc4=; b=UJRKFsWafwynHjcwZgogT54x2mwFqwuNrTd9/AmtoZbK+UEV5liNb9+kjsrGnDVMdN Y8+DJqZRBMStgZLJTCoSqKCnfaCwaHK8glKucRSgkt8hBkJIweujHBl3IGeu3YqeNXSj PANz4hG1tUy950TN7p9nSjbvu3MTt2jQ/C30Q+ruiH0Vb8KxzyJwZeTo4gB8jO0Pgi7H zuj5ohKhQcuIxBjj/zWYYFwVj2RtKLC5q2og2VGfeaSyc/Z0A/cqSe619ixld3BWU/zQ Cpcc3Hriaj+p2+lk8wRvihIB2sw1wK/aDfdwU6HeVAPRmWN8NbzE81tZYm/RbHObSy4K MdkA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Hhcynlrlw9717Ev0BVIQ2TpjeZBcpWK930syzRSbkMNJt5K0k AmjS1XD/65klgxRz9ldWQv7R6bPT1Q6dR7turEU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzos3T2GWnurgm6K3jp93LiUlPCdVkCubdB/njIlhsdR5ZGVvrHQAY5yWuHN2v34zKqjJ+bYURXEU6HNzSsPkE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ac8e:b0:143:6e61:460 with SMTP id h14-20020a170902ac8e00b001436e610460mr11185281plr.85.1638402986391; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 15:56:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211201053214.2902-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> <1f0cc771-b661-42ae-e928-75c27f1dab07@iee.email> In-Reply-To: <1f0cc771-b661-42ae-e928-75c27f1dab07@iee.email> From: Eric Sunshine Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:56:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] CodingGuidelines: document which output goes to stdout vs. stderr To: Philip Oakley Cc: Git List , Jeff King , Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Randall Becker , Baruch Burstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:27 PM Philip Oakley wrote: > On 01/12/2021 05:32, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > +Program Output > > + > > + We make a distinction between a command's primary output and output > > + which is merely chatty feedback (for instance, status messages, > > + running transcript, or progress display), as well as error messages. > > + Roughly speaking, a command's primary output is that which one might > > + want to capture to a file or send down a pipe; its chatty output > > + should not interfere with those use-cases. > > Is there a case for commenting on whether chatty output may be > suppressed if not feeding a terminal, or is that mentioned elsewhere? I > often see comments about the isatty() detection. I don't think I saw any such mention when reading through CodingGuidelines before composing the new text. That's certainly a topic which could be addressed, but I don't plan on adding it to this patch since I don't have any specific idea in mind for how it would be discussed. However, the new "Program Output" section added by this patch seems a good place to add that discussion if someone wants to have a go at it as a separate patch atop this one.