Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> 
>> > If it's smooth, the (50,1) case is slightly nicer in that it puts the
>> > progress in front of the user more quickly. I'm not sure if that's
>> > actually worth pushing an additional decision onto the person writing
>> > the calling code, though (especially when we are just now puzzling out
>> > the method for making such a decision from first principles).
>> >
>> > So I'd vote to drop that parameter entirely. And if 1 second seems
>> > noticeably snappier, then we should probably just move everything to a 1
>> > second delay (I don't have a strong feeling either way).
>> 
>> Sounds like a good idea to me.  
>> 
>> I've already locally tweaked Kevin's patch to use (0,2) instead of
>> (0,1) without introducing the simpler wrapper.  It should be trivial
>> to do a wrapper to catch and migrate all the (0,2) users to a
>> start_delayed_progress() that takes neither percentage or time with
>> mechanical replacement.
>
> I was actually proposing to move (50,1) cases to the simpler wrapper,
> too. IOW, drop the delayed_percent_treshold code entirely.

I should have mentioned that (50,1) should also be treated just like
(0,2) case--they should mean the same thing.  Other oddness like 95
might merit individual consideration, and I didn't want to add (0,1)
as another oddball to the mix.

Reply via email to