[bug] commands output inconsistence

[Alexander Belchenko]

Matthieu Moy пишет:
> Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net> writes:
>>So, what the answer on my question: is the output of some commands (such
>>a 'commit') that print their output to stderr should be readable by user
>>or not?
> 
> Of course it should be readable.
> 
> Your bug is that you have unreadable output. Yes, that's a bug. But
> what you propose (write to stdout instead of stderr) is a workaround,
> not a solution. It should obviously be used only if there is no
> solution.

Probably my english skill is too bad or I simply too dumby to understand
why different command should emit their information output to different
streams.

I try to talk not about workarounds. I try to talk about consistency.
Consistency of output of different bzr commands.

If I understand correctly there is several types of bzr output:

- errors and warnings messages
- progress bar (each command could potentially has progress bar)
- informational output

If I understand correctly errors, warnings, progress bar printed to
stderr, and all informational output printed to stdout.

Per example, bzr log for remote location:
it prints progress bar to stderr when it download info from remote
location, but then prints actual log to stdout.

All the time I was think that all informational output is printed to
stdout. But today I see: I was wrong. But I don't understand why. May be
someone could explain this. Explanation from Eric seems not user
friendly for me. It's a machine friendly. But I repeat this again:
probably I too dumb or too windows user.

So, if all developers think that usual output of commit command is not
informational and should not be emited to informational channel -- I'll
give up.

I simply wanted to have ability easy redirect output of commands to
file. It could be useful for creating examples for documentation or for
preparing bug reports.

--
Alexander