git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] bundle-create: progress output control

From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date
Nov 11, 2019, 08:10 UTC
Message-ID
<20191111081047.GA17861@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To
<robbat2-20191111T065646-317702456Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 07:28:55AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Do we need all four of these?
> I copied the exact set of messages from git-pack-objects, and I do think
> the same set makes sense specifically to mirror pack-objects for the
> moment.

I'm not sure I agree. In what situation would anybody use "git bundle create --all-progress-implied", for example? Literally no other Git command except pack-objects has "--all-progress" or "--all-progress-implied" (even ones which call pack-objects under the hood to print the progress!), and the presence of the latter in pack-objects is due to a backwards-compatibility thing in the early days (where --all-progress did too many things, but we could no longer change it). I think it would be a mistake to spread it further.

> I think there is a lot of room to improve the behavior here, but at the
> risk of breaking backwards compatibility on the existing options, I
> think this older set of options should consistent between this and
> pack-objects.

But now is the moment where we can do what we want without breaking compatibility (since there aren't any progress options for git-bundle at all yet).

I guess another way of thinking about it: why is "pack-objects" the model for how its progress options should work, and not "send-pack"? git-bundle is much closer to the latter in how users will invoke it.

Show 8 quoted lines
> > Just saying "--no-progress" would do what you want right now. I could
> > understand the desire for a general "--quiet" flag that implies
> > "--no-progress", and shuts off any other non-progress chatter as well.
> > There isn't any now, but it could be a future proofing thing (plus
> > having a "-q" option is standard). But I think we should document it
> > that way from the outset (though I notice you probably just lifted this
> > from pack-objects, IMHO it should be more clear, too).
> Willing to do later series to add --no-progress to this &

You already added --no-progress (and it's already there in pack-objects). It comes for free with OPT_SET_INT("progress").

-Peff
Previous: Robin H. JohnsonNext: Junio C Hamano
Message 7 of 13 in “bundle: framework for options before bundle file”
  1. 1/3 bundle: framework for options before bundle fileRobin H. Johnson, Nov 10, 2019
  2. 3/3 bundle-verify: add --quietRobin H. Johnson, Nov 10, 2019
  3. Jeff KingNov 11, 2019
  4. 2/3 bundle-create: progress output controlRobin H. Johnson, Nov 10, 2019
  5. Jeff KingNov 11, 2019
  6. Robin H. JohnsonNov 11, 2019
  7. Jeff KingNov 11, 2019
  8. Junio C HamanoNov 11, 2019
  9. Junio C HamanoNov 11, 2019
  10. Jeff KingNov 11, 2019
  11. Johannes SchindelinNov 11, 2019
  12. Junio C HamanoNov 11, 2019
  13. Johannes SchindelinNov 12, 2019

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.