Re: [PATCH v6] blame: add support for --[no-]progress option

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

 



On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Because, if the user didn't provide --[no-]progress option, then the
>> value in show_progress will move forward being -1 and then in
>> assign_blame, there will be progress output if you chose --incremental
>> or porcelain. So, if you chose --incremental or porcelain, we better
>> set the value to 0 to make sure there will be _no_ progress. Agree?
>
> Yeah, I was thinking of that and had the correct interpretation in
> mind when reading the code, but then blocked it out of my brain for
> some reason when actually composing the response.

Good! So, the only things to modify would be:
- documentation to reflect new policy
- no need to check for show_progress to ask to finish up struct
progress instance.

Let's give some time to allow for more comments before my next patch
version.... so, say, 5 minutes.
--
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]