Re: pd/fetch-jobs, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2019, #01; Sat, 7)

From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
Date: Sep 14, 2019, 13:58 UTC
Message-ID: <mhng-2c9b8fd0-22e7-4679-9d9b-f8128881fada@palmer-si-x1e>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8sqtgzp9.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:02:42 PDT (-0700), gitster@pobox.com wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
>>> * pd/fetch-jobs (2019-08-13) 5 commits
>>>  . fetch: make --jobs control submodules and remotes
>>>  . fetch: add the --submodule-fetch-jobs option
>>>  . fetch: add the fetch.jobs config key
>>>  . fetch: add the "--fetch-jobs" option
>>>  . fetch: rename max_children to max_children_for_submodules
>>>
>>>  "git fetch --jobs" is getting taught to also run fetch jobs in
>>>  parallel when fetching from multiple remote repositories.
>>>
>>>  Comments?
>>
>> I still stand by my suggestion that it is undesirable (and makes the
>> code much more complicated than necessary) to end up with three options.
>> Having only `--jobs=<n>` would be the ideal solution.
>
> I think exposing "--jobs" as the primary UI element is a good longer
> term goal; the approach taken in the intermediate step would be a
> necessary one for backward compatibility.
>
> I stopped carrying it in 'pu' some weeks ago (I suspect it had some
> interactions with other topics in flight, by causing either test
> failures or textual conflicts).  Perhaps somebody interested enough
> in the topic can resurrect it.

Sorry, I'm somewhat new to the git development process. I'm happy to re-spin the patch set, I'm just not sure what do to here. It looks like there are some test failures when I rebase to the latest master, which I'm happy to fix. Just let me know if I should:

* Send all 5 patches, under the assumption that the last one will not get 
  merged until some time later.
* Send just the first 4 patches, holding onto the last one for later.
* Send just a single patch, which wouldn't add the --fetch-jobs and 
  --submodule-fetch-jobs arguments.