On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:54:57AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Just after the previous step justified its simplification of its > progress logic based on how small the buffer is, this step makes it > 16 times as big, which felt a tiny bit dishonest. We probably > should say somewhere that 128k is still small enough that the > rewrite in the previous step is still valid ;-) I noticed that, too. I'm not sure if still is small enough. For local pack writes, etc, it seems fine. But what about "index-pack --stdin" reading over the network? Updating progress every 8k instead of every 128k seems like it would be more responsive, especially if the network is slow or jittery. I dunno. Maybe that is too small to care about for the modern world, but I just want to make sure we are not being blinded by the fast networks all of us presumably enjoy. :) -Peff
