bzr with bzr+ssh noisy and output muddled.

[David Ingamells]

Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:31:20PM +0200 I heard the voice of
> David Ingamells, and lo! it spake thus:
>   
>> The fact that some other less well informed projects do it doesn't
>> make it an OK thing to do.
>>     
>
> You claim "less well informed".  I say rather that it's a standard,
> very common, and highly useful idiom.  That doesn't mean it's the only
> choice, or even necessarily the best in any case, but to claim it as
> some sort of original sin, or unprecedented perversity of bzr, is
> laying it out pretty thick.  
Where did I say it was some form of "original sin ..."? What I am saying 
is that STDERR was though up by some very great men in the history of 
Unix for an excellent - and still very valid - reason. By such lack of 
respect for that reason in some command-line tools the original purpose 
is effectively being lost and CLI users are the victims of the 
developer's laziness and lack of respect. The fact that one or 2 minor 
tools use it doesn't make it "very common". If svn or CVS did it you 
might have some basis for your argument, but monotone???  I have raised 
this here because I want  bzr to be and remain mainstream, and by such 
lack of respect for the correct use for STDERR bzr risks losing the 
credibility it needs to remain mainstream.
> Any soi-disant "unix power-user" who
> hasn't seen it before has been leading a very sheltered life.
>   
Oh! I've seen - and suffered from - it before and every time it annoys 
me. It also annoys me when people try to claim I said things that I 
didn't, Matthew D. Fuller. Are you a soi-disant new-age thinker who 
knows better than those men who invented STDERR ( along with UNIX, C, ...)?
>
>   
>> Respect the meaning of the name: "Standard ERROR", not "any other
>> stuff you might want to output but can't think of the proper way to
>> do it".
>>     
>
> Respect the meaning of the name: TELETYPEWRITER, not "some random way
> of entering input and getting output".
>
> Things are rarely just the literal meaning of their name.
>
>   
There you have shot yourself in the foot - a CLI program that uses the 
correct UNIX paradigm for I/O will still work correctly with a TTY - as 
far as the program is concerned it won't know the difference - and won't 
need to care. That is one of the beauties of UNIX (and by inheritance 
Linux). I don't think your diluted approach goes so far as allowing 
output to STDIN or input from STDERR does it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090616/b7fb8838/attachment.htm