C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:56:59 -0400: > On 11/01/2012 10:33 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > >> Agreed. And for what it's worth, I like the second form, especially if > >> the errorful lines go to stderr. > > > > Hmm, it's also reasonable to consider a combination of both: print a > > notification for every revision ("Verified rX" or "FAILED to verify rX" > > on stdout, AND an error message on stderr for each error. > > Yes, I think that's ideal, so long as in the error case both the message to > stdout ("FAILED to verify rX") and the message(s) to stderr carry the > revision number. In other words, both streams should be independently > valuable to the reader.
+1 to having a non-zero exit code if there was any error throughout.