On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:12:41PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Steven Grimm wrote: > > > On 19/10/2007, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This makes the fetch output much more terse. It is likely to > > > be very controversial. Here's an example of the new output: > > > > > > Indexing objects: 100% (1061/1061), done. > > > Resolving deltas: 100% (638/638), done. > > > > Those two lines are actually my beef with the fetch output. As a newbie, I had > > no idea what "Indexing objects" actually meant. We have this thing called "the > > index" in git so I would expect "Indexing objects" to have something to do > > with that, but it doesn't seem to. > > > > How about something more descriptive of the high-level operation that's going > > on, along the lines of: > > > > Gathering changes from remote: 100% (1061/1061), done. > > Applying changes locally: 100% (638/638), done. > > This is even more wrong. > > Agreed, indexing objects might not be the best description. It probably > will become "receiving objects" along with a bandwitth meter. The term 'objects' here always confuses me. What is often my first thing to check the number of individual commits being added after a git pull. Wether a commit touches one or several files is less important (to my way of using git). Sam - 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
