Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> The main concern I saw here was "we are doing a lot of work that isn't >> used if the user doesn't want to log traces" - should I approach a >> reroll of this topic by trying to be smarter about whether to set >> 'quiet' or 'print' or 'verbose' or whatever it is renamed to, based on >> whether there is a trace destination? Then for systems which are logging >> traces the extra work is worth it, but for everyone else it can function >> as before. >> >> I don't love it from a design perspective - it feels a little like >> progress module is looking a little too closely at trace module >> internals. > > Isn't that primarily due to the decision to tie progress and trace > too closely? If so, perhaps that needs to be revisited? Or the "too close coupling" needs to be accepted as the cost of doing so (as "progress is often a good cue for an event worth tracing" was a convenient way to cheat by programmers not to spend too many braincycles to decide adding trace points---they automatically got them when they decided to show progress output). > > I dunno.
