On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 09:06:18AM +0100, Philip Oakley wrote:
> > > > + 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).
I think you're confusing two unrelated things. There's a 1-second fake
time-advance on patches, but that's done by send-email, not
format-patch.
Here we're just talking about calls to start_progress_delay(), and how
long it waits before deciding that the operation is slow enough to show
progress. Blame, rename detection, and checkout use 1 second. Prune,
prune-packed, and connectivity checks all use 2 seconds. I doubt it
matters all that much, but presumably the purpose in all is "how long
before a user starts to wonder if things are actually happening", which
is probably command-independent.
-Peff
