On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Hrm, no. I spoke too soon because I was conflating "commit-graph write" > v.s. "gc". For "gc" we're now with this change just e.g. spending 6 > seconds on 2015-04-03-1M-git displaying nothing, because we're looping > through the commits and finding that we have no new work. > > So I'm on the fence about this, but leaning towards just taking my > initial approch. I.e. it sucks if you're e.g. testing different "git gc" > options that we're churning in the background doing nothing, just > because we're trying to report how many *new* things we added to the > graph. > > After all, the main point IMNSHO is not to show some diagnostic output > of exactly how much work we're doing, that I have 200 new commits with > generation numbers or whatever is just useless trivia, but rather to not > leave the user thinking the command is hanging. I think there's some precedent for your view of things, too. For example, "writing objects" counts _all_ of the objects, even though many of them are just copying bytes straight from disk, and some are actually generating a delta and/or zlib-deflating content. So it's not the most precise measurement we could give, but it shows there's activity, and the "average" movement over many objects tends to be reasonably smooth. > So I think I'll just do what I was doing to begin with and change the > message to "Refreshing commit graph generation numbers" or something to > indicate that it's a find/verify/compute operation, not just a compute > operation. So basically yes, I agree with this. :) -Peff
