From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:57:57 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/4] inexact rename detection eye candy Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20110219102533.GD22508@sigill.intra.peff.net> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > This feels wrong because it's in such a deep library function. At the > very least we probably need some way to turn it off, so callers can pass > along any --quiet or --no-progress indicators. Yeah. > I made it update progress for each of the rename_src * rename_dst > similarity estimates. We could just as easily count rename_dst items we > look at, but hey, it's eye candy, and obviously bigger numbers are > better. Uhh. My only big reaction to your patch was literally "why don't you just do it on the 'dst' items". I really don't think bigger numbers are better, and if you have _so_ many sources that each dst takes so long that you'd want updates at that granularity, you're too screwed anyway. Don't make the "update progress" be part of the O(n^2) problem. Linus