| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:49 PM Frederik Pfautsch |
| 2 |
<frederik.pfautsch@×××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Am 11.07.22 um 20:14 schrieb Mike Gilbert: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:57 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >>>> Maybe leave ebegin/eend in place then, which was invented precisely for |
| 10 |
> >>>> this use case? What's so bad about nesting it? |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >>> It leads to odd looking output. |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/commit/?id=eba088af8f335c0adb386461e6df1267e24800e7 |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> IIUC it would look like this, with the patch applied: |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> * task 1 |
| 19 |
> >> * Doing task 2 ... [ ok ] |
| 20 |
> >> * task 1 succeeded |
| 21 |
> >> |
| 22 |
> >> That's not the most beautiful of outputs either. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Right. I would prefer to apply the first patch I submitted instead. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> How about output like: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> * Doing task 1 ... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> | * Doing task 2 ... |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> | \> [ ok ] |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> | |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> | additional log from task 1 |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> | line 2 of task 1 log |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> \> [ !! ] |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> This would require keeping track of the current "indentation" |
| 43 |
> level/prepend "| " to each output for every level. But not sure if is |
| 44 |
> possible/how difficult it is to implement. Just sort of a quick idea. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That seems like it would be somewhat involved to implement, and it |
| 47 |
seems like a lot of complexity to solve relatively minor problem. |
Archives