hg -q log ... prints changeset number.

[Masklinn]

On 2012-04-09, at 18:35 , Harvey Chapman wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Masklinn wrote:
> 
>> Surely there's no point to a command which doesn't display anything.
>> Considering the normal log, this looks plenty quiet to me.
> 
> In defense of Alan:
> There are plenty of unix commands that emit no regular output when told to run quietly but they do return an exit code indicating the result. Alan justifiably assumed that Mercurial's -q would fit the familiar pattern and when it didn't, he assumed that one tool, Mercurial, was broken, and not the established pattern.
> 
I'm not sure I would call the pattern "familiar" or "established" since
its implementation is pretty arbitrary (as is repetitions of qs to lower
the software's verbosity further).

And I would not expect *log* to be silent on a match anyway, `id` maybe
but definitely not log.