On 26/10/19 9:01 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 26/10/19 12:35 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 09:56:14AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
On 25/10/19 7:51 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 24/10/19 11:41 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:28:22PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
When both the options (--quiet and --verbose) in btrfs send and
receive
is specified, we need at least one of it to overrule the other,
irrespective
of the chronological order of options.
I think the common behaviour is to respect the order of appearance on
the commandline.
I am fine with this. Will fix it as this.
Question: command -v -q -v should be equal to command -v, right?
No, that would be equivalent to the default level:
verbose starts with 1 ()
verbose++ (-v)
verbose = 0 (-q)
verbose++ is now 1, which is not -v ()
Oh I was thinking its a bug, and no need to carry forward to the global
verbose. Will make it look like this.
What do you think should be the final %verbose value when both
local and global verbose and or quiet options are specified?
For example:
btrfs -v -q sub-command -v
btrfs -q sub-command -v
btrfs -vv sub-command -q
etc..
Thanks, Anand
