From: "Junio C Hamano" <gits...@pobox.com>
Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote:
@@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv,
const char *prefix)
OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", &signature_file,
N_("add a signature from a file")),
OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("don't print the patch filenames")),
+ OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &show_progress,
+ N_("show progress while generating patches")),
Earlier I suggested allowing --progress="custom text" since this may be
driven as plumbing for other commands. But I don't think there's any
need to worry about it now. It can be added seamlessly later if we find
such a caller.
@@ -1752,8 +1757,12 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv,
const char *prefix)
start_number--;
}
rev.add_signoff = do_signoff;
+
+ if (show_progress)
+ progress = start_progress_delay(_("Generating patches"), total, 0, 1);
I don't really have an opinion on a 1 second delay versus 2. I thought
we used 2 pretty consistently, though grepping around I do see a couple
of 1's. It probably doesn't matter, but just a curiosity.
Yeah, I also thought 2-second was what we used by default. Perhaps
we would want to bring others in line?
<bikeshed> Surely the choice should depend on the purpose of the delay. IIRC
the 1 second between patches on the formal 'sent' time was simply to ensure
the patches had the right sequence. Delays for warnings and progress have
different purposes, so I think it's more about the purpose than
standardising the time (along with expectations [least surprise] if other
messages are displayed).
--
Philip
