On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:53:35PM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > Interesting. I'm not opposed to something like this, but I added > > "--verbose-log" specifically for scripted cases, like running an > > unattended "prove" that needs to preserve stdout. When running > > individual tests, I'd just use "-v" itself, and possibly redirect the > > output. > > > > For my curiosity, can you describe your use case a bit more? > > Even when I run individual test scripts by hand, I prefer to have a > file catching all output of the test, because I don't like it when the > test output floods my terminal (especially with '-x'), and because the > file is searchable but the terminal isn't. And that's exactly what > '--verbose-log' does. > > Redirecting the '-v' output (i.e. stdout) alone is insufficient, > because any error messages within the tests and the '-x' trace go to > stderr, so they still end up on the terminal. Therefore I would have > to remember to redirect stderr every time as well. > > I find it's much easier to just always use '--verbose-log'... except > for the length of the option, that is, hence this patch.
OK, fair enough. Maybe I should start using "-V" too, then. ;) (I find myself most often coupling "-v" with "-i" to stop at the failure and just read what's left on the screen). -Peff
