On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > > > > I really don't have an opinion either way. Actually I think the > > > entire progress system of git-pack-objects should be reduced even > > > further so that users aren't exposed to the internal phases we > > > are going through. Most of them just don't care. They just > > > want to know when its going to be done[*1*]. > > > > Well, with my latest patches in that area, the typical progress on > > screen has been cut in half. And the different phases are intertaining. > > Yup. Your patches were a big improvement. But I'm now sitting here > wondering if we shouldn't just allow a progress meter to overwrite > the prior one. Then you only see the current task and progress, > or the final output if we have nothing further to say about that. And then you've lost some diagnostic clue (the absolute numbers) about the actual number of objects that were listed for "deltification" for example. And imagine that you see the progress moving slowly because the remote server is a NSLU2, but it says 80%. Then you go for a coffee and the progress says 20% when you return because it now has moved to a different phase. Rather counter intuitive. Nicolas - 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
