On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > To be clear, which approach are we talking about? I think there are
> > three options:
> >
> > 1. The user tells us not to bother computing real ahead/behind values.
> > We always say "same" or "not
Jeff King writes:
> To be clear, which approach are we talking about? I think there are
> three options:
>
> 1. The user tells us not to bother computing real ahead/behind values.
> We always say "same" or "not the same".
>
> 2. The user tells us not to bother computing ahead/behind valu
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:29:31AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> > > But even still, finding small answers quickly and accurately and punting
> > > to "really far, I didn't bother to compute it" on the big ones would be
> > > an improvement over always punting.
> > Indeed. The longer I think abou
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:15:47PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > I like this direction a lot. I had hoped we could say "100+ commits
> > ahead",
>
> How about "100+ commits apart" instead?
Yeah, that is probably more accurate for the general case.
> > but I don't think we can do so accu
Hi Stolee,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 1/9/2018 8:15 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > > But I don't think you can approximate both ahead and behind together
> > > without finding the actual merge base.
> > >
> > > But even stil
On 1/9/2018 9:29 AM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
On 1/9/2018 8:15 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Peff,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:04:20PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
I was thinking about something similar to the logic we use today
about whether to start
On 1/9/2018 8:15 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Peff,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:04:20PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
I was thinking about something similar to the logic we use today
about whether to start reporting progress on other long commands.
Tha
Hi Peff,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:04:20PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>
> > > I was thinking about something similar to the logic we use today
> > > about whether to start reporting progress on other long commands.
> > > That would mean you could still g
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 03:04:20PM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> > I was thinking about something similar to the logic we use today
> > about whether to start reporting progress on other long commands.
> > That would mean you could still get the ahead/behind values if you
> > aren't that far behi
On 1/8/2018 2:49 PM, Ben Peart wrote:
On 1/8/2018 10:48 AM, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
From: Jeff Hostetler
This is version 4 of my patch series to avoid expensive ahead/behind
calculations in status. This version removes the last commit containing
the experimental config setting. And removes
On 1/8/2018 10:48 AM, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
From: Jeff Hostetler
This is version 4 of my patch series to avoid expensive ahead/behind
calculations in status. This version removes the last commit containing
the experimental config setting. And removes the undefined return values
for the nr_a
From: Jeff Hostetler
This is version 4 of my patch series to avoid expensive ahead/behind
calculations in status. This version removes the last commit containing
the experimental config setting. And removes the undefined return values
for the nr_ahead/nr_behind arguments as discussed on the mai
12 matches
Mail list logo