Hi Jeff, thanks for the reply!
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:33:28 +0000, Jeff King wrote: ... > I didn't dig in the archive, but I think we discussed the "just show > progress for destinations" before. The problem you run into is that the > items aren't a good indication of the amount of work. You really are > doing n*m work, so if you just count "m", it can be very misleading if > "n" is high (and vice versa). True, but the loops do progress indication for destinations only anyway. So if you only have three destinations and a zillion sources, you will still get only three progress updates, even if they say 'one zillion (33%)', 'two zillion (67%)', ... I think as long as this is the case we can as well report the destination count; maybe put the source count somewhere in the progress text. > Might it make more sense just to move to a larger integer size? Which would be? I'd venture into the progress code to identify the necessary changes. > Or > perhaps to allow a higher limit for each side as long as the product of > the sides does not overflow? We're somewhat close to getting there. The rename detection runs for several minutes in our cases. Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
