Re: A tour of git: the basics (and notes on some unfriendly messages)

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

 




On Sep 29, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

* There's a ton of extraneous output from git-fetch. I would love to
    see it reduced to a single-line progress bar, (even if a
    multiple-staged progress bar). I'm imagining a final line
    something like:

	Computing (100%) Transferring (100%)

    But you can imagine more accurate words than those, (I'm not even
    sure what all of the things mean that git-fetch is currently
    reporting progress on).

Yea.  About half of that output is from pack-objects and either
unpack-objects or index-pack.  The other part is from git-fetch
itself as it updates the local tracking branches (if any are to be
updated).  Now that git-fetch is in C and reasonably stable maybe
I can look into making this prettier.  Few people really grok the
pack-objects/index-pack output, nor do they care.  They just want
to know two things:

  - Is git working or frozen in limbo?
  - Is git frozen because my network sucks, or git sucks?
  - When will this be done?  Please $DIETY, I want to go home!
    Make the fetch finish!

The C based git-fetch made the http protocol almost totally silent.
(No more got/walk messages.)  But that's actually also bad as it
now doesn't even let you know its transferring anything at all.

There are serious issues here about getting the user the progress
they really want.  The last item ("When will this be done?") is
actually not possible to determine under either the native git
protocol or HTTP/FTP.  We have no idea up front how much data must
be transferred.  In the native git case we do know how many objects,
but we don't know how many bytes that will be.  It could be under
a kilobyte in one project.  That same object count for a different
set of objects fetch could be 500M.  Radically different transfer
times would be required.

Often you know that you have a good connection and you are not
interested in any progress reporting at all. _No_ output would be
perfect. A return code of 0 would already tell you all you need
to know. If you'd like to know more you could pass something like
'--verbose' or '--progress'.

Quite often git prints a lot of very technical information that
is not very interesting as long as things succeed without error.
Some examples are
- git fetch (see above)
- git rebase: prints a lot of details that I'm not interested in
  unless the rebase fails.
- git push: prints updates of remote heads. A message about
  failing to update a remote head may get lost.
- git merge: the fact that a merge is a fast forward merge gets
  printed at the very top, followed by (often a lot of) diffstat.
  I know diffstat can help to judge if the merge did what you
  expected. But even more important is the fact that the merge
  was just a fast forward, which may get buried under lots of output.

Maybe git should become more quiet, as other unix tools are, and
per default only report problems. Technical details and progress
could be requested explicitly by '--verbose' or similar. We could
pipe all the technical output to a per-repository logfile, which
can be consulted in case of errors. The log could be cropped
during 'git gc'.


	Steffen
-
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]

  Powered by Linux