On 9/7/2018 1:15 PM, Jeff King wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Hrm, no. I spoke too soon because I was conflating "commit-graph write"
v.s. "gc". For "gc" we're now with this change just e.g. spending 6
seconds on 2015-04-03-1M-git displaying nothing, because we're looping
through the commits and finding that we have no new work.
So I'm on the fence about this, but leaning towards just taking my
initial approch. I.e. it sucks if you're e.g. testing different "git gc"
options that we're churning in the background doing nothing, just
because we're trying to report how many *new* things we added to the
graph.
After all, the main point IMNSHO is not to show some diagnostic output
of exactly how much work we're doing, that I have 200 new commits with
generation numbers or whatever is just useless trivia, but rather to not
leave the user thinking the command is hanging.
I think there's some precedent for your view of things, too. For
example, "writing objects" counts _all_ of the objects, even though many
of them are just copying bytes straight from disk, and some are actually
generating a delta and/or zlib-deflating content.
So it's not the most precise measurement we could give, but it shows
there's activity, and the "average" movement over many objects tends to
be reasonably smooth.
So I think I'll just do what I was doing to begin with and change the
message to "Refreshing commit graph generation numbers" or something to
indicate that it's a find/verify/compute operation, not just a compute
operation.
So basically yes, I agree with this. :)
Same here. Thanks for the discussion.
-Stolee
