From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:50:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] revision: implement sparse algorithm
Message-ID: <161dd748-2ba6-cac7-433e-bd493d429759@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87a7l41b78.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

On 12/17/2018 9:26 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>
>> As for adding progress to this step, I'm open to it. It can be done as
>> a sequel series.
> Okey. To clarify I wasn't complaining about the lack of progress output,
> we didn't have it before, just clarifying (as I've found out now) that
> when you're talking about "enumerating objects" in your commit message
> it's *not* what we're doing when we show the "Enumerating objects"
> progress bar, but an unrelated step prior to that.
Part of the problem is that in builtin/pack-objects.c, we have the 
following:

         if (progress)
                 progress_state = start_progress(_("Enumerating 
objects"), 0);
         if (!use_internal_rev_list)
                 read_object_list_from_stdin();
         else {
                 get_object_list(rp.argc, rp.argv);
                 argv_array_clear(&rp);
         }
         cleanup_preferred_base();
         if (include_tag && nr_result)
                 for_each_ref(add_ref_tag, NULL);
         stop_progress(&progress_state);

and the logic for walking uninteresting objects is the 
mark_edges_uninteresting() inside get_object_list() (both entirely 
contained in this progress state). Perhaps the best thing to do is to 
untangle the progress for the two modes based on 
'use_internal_rev_list'. Could we then have the progress for 
get_object_list() be "Walking objects" instead?

Thanks,
-Stolee