From: Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 00:40:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] blame: add support for --[no-]progress option
Message-ID: <CAOc6etYCZOA9SOxWp3cKuY0z249jeb5vYAhvbLEohYGeVqi6Bg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQjWgTR9Sd-CutkbuBa1Czp5YApsYoFXc9HS1H08cno7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Because, if the user didn't provide --[no-]progress option, then the
>> value in show_progress will move forward being -1 and then in
>> assign_blame, there will be progress output if you chose --incremental
>> or porcelain. So, if you chose --incremental or porcelain, we better
>> set the value to 0 to make sure there will be _no_ progress. Agree?
>
> Yeah, I was thinking of that and had the correct interpretation in
> mind when reading the code, but then blocked it out of my brain for
> some reason when actually composing the response.

Good! So, the only things to modify would be:
- documentation to reflect new policy
- no need to check for show_progress to ask to finish up struct
progress instance.

Let's give some time to allow for more comments before my next patch
version.... so, say, 5 minutes.