Re: About global --progress option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Besides, I am not convinced that you are bringing in a net positive
> value by allowing "git --no-progress clone".  You would need to
> think what to do when you get two conflicting options (e.g. should
> "git --no-progress clone --progress" give progress?  Why?), you
> would need to explain to the users why the resulting code works the
> way you made it work (most likely, "do nothing special") when the
> global one is given to a command that does not give any progress
> output, and you would need to make sure whatever answers you would
> give to these questions are implemented consistently.  And you would
> need more code to do so.  It is unclear to me what value the end
> users get out of all that effort, if any, and if the value offered
> to the end users outweigh the added complexity, additional code that
> has to be maintained, and additional risk to introduce unnecessary
> bugs.

The contradictory case of git --progress whatever --no-progress (or
viceversa) was going to be my follow-up question. Dude, don't get too
far ahead in the conversation :-)

On the technical side, I think the global --progress option (and
removing the option from the builtins) would not add complexity but
the opposite because setting the flag would be done at the "main git"
level and then all the builtins would just forget about it and would
use progress regardless (cause deciding _if_ progress should be shown
or not won't be up to them anymore) so the code from the builtins to
support the option would be gone. It would certainly be more complex
while keeping global and builtin options alive. Anyway, I do
understand your concerns and will stand down on the topic (as in....
global --progress who???).

> A lot more useful thing to do in the same area with a lot smaller
> amount of effort would be to find an operation that sometimes take a
> long time to perform that does not show the progress report and
> teach the codepath involved in the operation to show progress, I
> would think.

Sounds interesting and in-topic (different direction). You got a list
of those paths that I could work on? At least a couple you can think
off the top of your head? Cause I can't complain about the progress I
get on the workflows I follow (although I could keep a closer look to
try to catch some operation I know is taking place and is not showing
any progress and I'm used to it and so I don't complain at the lack of
progress). Right now I'm thinking about cherry-picking... sometimes it
can take a few seconds (or more seconds.... you have to see the
performance of some of the boxes that I work on) and getting some
progress there would be nice. Will take a look at it. Nice way to get
familiarized with the code, by the way.

Thank you very much, Junio!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]