Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Aug 14, 2017, 22:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8tilu5yx.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170814222947.edvuz7b2hxuwcsqj@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 9 quoted lines
> If it's smooth, the (50,1) case is slightly nicer in that it puts the > progress in front of the user more quickly. I'm not sure if that's > actually worth pushing an additional decision onto the person writing > the calling code, though (especially when we are just now puzzling out > the method for making such a decision from first principles). > > So I'd vote to drop that parameter entirely. And if 1 second seems > noticeably snappier, then we should probably just move everything to a 1 > second delay (I don't have a strong feeling either way).
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I've already locally tweaked Kevin's patch to use (0,2) instead of (0,1) without introducing the simpler wrapper. It should be trivial to do a wrapper to catch and migrate all the (0,2) users to a start_delayed_progress() that takes neither percentage or time with mechanical replacement.