On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:37:52PM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I think this is OK for now, though it does make me wonder if > > "--progress" ought to perhaps override "delayed" in some instances, > > since it's a positive signal from the caller that they're interested in > > seeing progress. > > I did have the same reaction after seeing the change to 5318 where > the expected output from "git commit-graph write --progress" has > become unreliable. > > I think there are possibly three kinds of folks: > > - I do not want the output smudged with any progress (e.g. I am a > script); > > - I want to see progress if it takes very long, but do not waste > vertical screen real estate if it does not make me wait (e.g. I > am an interactive user who occasionally wants a cue to leave the > keyboard to grab coffee); and > > - I want to see all progress (... now who am I? Taking a > screenshot to write a tutorial or something???). I think type 3 may be people who want to understand more about the program flow, and where it's at when it sees an error. > In the ideal world, the three choices above should probably be > "--progress=(no|auto|always)" where not having any defaults to one > of them (probably "auto", as the code can use isatty() to further > turn it to "no"). I think any no/auto/always here is tricky, because it already has a meaning: to use or disregard isatty(2). And overriding that might be independent of the "type" (think pack-objects on a server generating output that's going over the wire; we have to tell it "yes, definitely show progress even though there is no terminal", but that has nothing to do with any "delay" decisions). -Peff
