On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:03:15PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:33:28 +0000, Jeff King wrote: > ... > > I didn't dig in the archive, but I think we discussed the "just show > > progress for destinations" before. The problem you run into is that the > > items aren't a good indication of the amount of work. You really are > > doing n*m work, so if you just count "m", it can be very misleading if > > "n" is high (and vice versa). > > True, but the loops do progress indication for destinations only anyway. > So if you only have three destinations and a zillion sources, you > will still get only three progress updates, even if they say > 'one zillion (33%)', 'two zillion (67%)', ... > > I think as long as this is the case we can as well report the destination > count; maybe put the source count somewhere in the progress text. Ah, true. Though maybe that is something we should be fixing, rather than building on. I dunno. I cannot recall the last time I saw rename detection progress myself. > > Might it make more sense just to move to a larger integer size? > > Which would be? I'd venture into the progress code to identify > the necessary changes. I was thinking of uint64_t; the progress code would need to change, but I don't see a big problem with that. > We're somewhat close to getting there. The rename detection runs > for several minutes in our cases. Yikes. :) -Peff -- 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