From: Philip Oakley Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:06:18 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches Message-ID: In-Reply-To: From: "Junio C Hamano" > Jeff King writes: > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote: >> >>> @@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, >>> const char *prefix) >>> OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", &signature_file, >>> N_("add a signature from a file")), >>> OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("don't print the patch filenames")), >>> + OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &show_progress, >>> + N_("show progress while generating patches")), >> >> Earlier I suggested allowing --progress="custom text" since this may be >> driven as plumbing for other commands. But I don't think there's any >> need to worry about it now. It can be added seamlessly later if we find >> such a caller. >> >>> @@ -1752,8 +1757,12 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, >>> const char *prefix) >>> start_number--; >>> } >>> rev.add_signoff = do_signoff; >>> + >>> + if (show_progress) >>> + progress = start_progress_delay(_("Generating patches"), total, 0, 1); >> >> I don't really have an opinion on a 1 second delay versus 2. I thought >> we used 2 pretty consistently, though grepping around I do see a couple >> of 1's. It probably doesn't matter, but just a curiosity. > > Yeah, I also thought 2-second was what we used by default. Perhaps > we would want to bring others in line? Surely the choice should depend on the purpose of the delay. IIRC the 1 second between patches on the formal 'sent' time was simply to ensure the patches had the right sequence. Delays for warnings and progress have different purposes, so I think it's more about the purpose than standardising the time (along with expectations [least surprise] if other messages are displayed). -- Philip