Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > To be clear, which approach are we talking about? I think there are
> > three options:
> >
> >   1. The user tells us not to bother computing real ahead/behind values.
> >      We always say "same" or "not the same".
> >
> >   2. The user tells us not to bother computing ahead/behind values
> >      with more effort than N. After traversing N commits without getting
> >      an answer, we say "same" or "not the same". But we may sometimes
> >      give a real answer if we found it within N.
> >
> >   3. The user tells us not to spend more effort than N. After traversing
> >      N commits we try to make some partial statement based on
> >      generations (or commit timestamps as a proxy for them).
> >
> > I agree that (3) is probably not going to be useful enough in the
> > general case to merit the implementation effort and confusion. But is
> > there anything wrong with (2)?
> 
> I agree (3) would not be all that interesting.  Offhand I do not see
> a problem with (2).  I think with "real" in your "sometimes give a
> real answer" you meant to say that we limit our answers to just one
> three ("same", "not the same", "ahead/behind by exactly N/M") and I
> think it is a good choice that is easy to explain.