From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B27203E3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 19:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752930AbcGZThs (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:37:48 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59222 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbcGZThq (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:37:46 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8952F05B; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:37:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=1eB6gZ25oV97rss8S+YqH58DvlA=; b=B8453Y TrP/UZ68uEJF1EKenx5z0cgTTr/h0ED2hHW5jCjDLBEn455fFVPnHKt6l/73xc+6 jAT2UEEL/O3p4gX9rhHlbhmKHPPfqcNiNk9DCAt0tC+lAt7befAo8RINclzhiJL7 AbBMPlv1YFaFv60U5N/wLhbb4jtsSbn1Dxmfw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XCg4o59QhoFWTIbvh8BkA3UqZuSUC5ug fA7yOkVCzOD5l/Vgb88OuL2kxKvaP/eUq8ONQLUeGrI8/HEFCtAZcJONSTjoy8Vl a8U2OLsQzxkImthTAT/Aqw3KTM5D/Xo/w5vu91OgfItE7K76ImGZADHGgzo08tRi L4630xeTi6E= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FDF2F05A; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:37:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5FEF2F057; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:37:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIg?= =?utf-8?B?QXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Karsten Blees , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , Stefan Beller , Eric Sunshine , Ramsay Jones , Johannes Sixt , =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 35/41] apply: make 'be_silent' incompatible with 'apply_verbosely' References: <20160627182429.31550-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20160627182429.31550-36-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:37:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160627182429.31550-36-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> (Christian Couder's message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:24:23 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6CD8F0C6-5368-11E6-B3D6-89D312518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: > It should be an error to have both be_silent and apply_verbosely set, > so let's check that in check_apply_state(). Doesn't that suggest that we do not want to have a new be_silent field at all? Perhaps we used to have apply_verbosely = resulting in only two verbosity levels, "verbose" and "normal", and you want to have another new one "total silence" or something? If so perhaps it would be more appropriate to rename apply_verbosely to apply_verbosity that is no longer a boolean?