On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:49 PM Frederik Pfautsch <frederik.pfaut...@fpprogs.de> wrote: > > Am 11.07.22 um 20:14 schrieb Mike Gilbert: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:57 PM Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >> > >>>> Maybe leave ebegin/eend in place then, which was invented precisely for > >>>> this use case? What's so bad about nesting it? > >> > >>> It leads to odd looking output. > >> > >>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=eba088af8f335c0adb386461e6df1267e24800e7 > >> > >> IIUC it would look like this, with the patch applied: > >> > >> * task 1 > >> * Doing task 2 ... [ ok ] > >> * task 1 succeeded > >> > >> That's not the most beautiful of outputs either. > > > > Right. I would prefer to apply the first patch I submitted instead. > > How about output like: > > * Doing task 1 ... > > | * Doing task 2 ... > > | \> [ ok ] > > | > > | additional log from task 1 > > | line 2 of task 1 log > > \> [ !! ] > > This would require keeping track of the current "indentation" > level/prepend "| " to each output for every level. But not sure if is > possible/how difficult it is to implement. Just sort of a quick idea.
That seems like it would be somewhat involved to implement, and it seems like a lot of complexity to solve relatively minor problem.
