From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 17:25:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] commit-graph write: add progress output
Message-ID: <27b2e24c-4f96-b8d9-3c03-68195d447394@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180907171548.GA11708@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On 9/7/2018 1:15 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Hrm, no. I spoke too soon because I was conflating "commit-graph write"
>> v.s. "gc". For "gc" we're now with this change just e.g. spending 6
>> seconds on 2015-04-03-1M-git displaying nothing, because we're looping
>> through the commits and finding that we have no new work.
>>
>> So I'm on the fence about this, but leaning towards just taking my
>> initial approch. I.e. it sucks if you're e.g. testing different "git gc"
>> options that we're churning in the background doing nothing, just
>> because we're trying to report how many *new* things we added to the
>> graph.
>>
>> After all, the main point IMNSHO is not to show some diagnostic output
>> of exactly how much work we're doing, that I have 200 new commits with
>> generation numbers or whatever is just useless trivia, but rather to not
>> leave the user thinking the command is hanging.
> I think there's some precedent for your view of things, too. For
> example, "writing objects" counts _all_ of the objects, even though many
> of them are just copying bytes straight from disk, and some are actually
> generating a delta and/or zlib-deflating content.
>
> So it's not the most precise measurement we could give, but it shows
> there's activity, and the "average" movement over many objects tends to
> be reasonably smooth.
>
>> So I think I'll just do what I was doing to begin with and change the
>> message to "Refreshing commit graph generation numbers" or something to
>> indicate that it's a find/verify/compute operation, not just a compute
>> operation.
> So basically yes, I agree with this. :)

Same here. Thanks for the discussion.

-Stolee