Hi Hannes, On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 14.12.2016 um 14:06 schrieb Jeff King: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 07:53:23AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > > > > 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].) Seeing as the original intention was to do away with the RUN_HIDE_STDERR_ON_SUCCESS flag, and that the sequencer-i branch *must* include that functionality somehow, it is unfortunately not really possible to do this on top of the patch series. I say "unfortunately" because I feel pretty uncomfortable with replacing something that has been tried and tested by something that still awaits the test of time. So the only possible course of action I see is to go the really long route: incorporate the patches to use pipe_command() instead of introducing a new RUN_* flag (which means basically munch up your patch and Peff's and move it somewhere into the middle of the sequencer-i patch series, which is exactly what I already did locally), cook the patches beyond recognition in `next`, i.e. cook it really long to give it a really good testing before moving the patches to `master`. Ciao, Johannes
