Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King 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 >> >

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King 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

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King 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

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:35:33AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Perhaps we may want to replace the calls to progress_delay() with a > > call to a simpler wrapper that does not let the callers give their > > own delay threashold to simplify the

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > Perhaps we may want to replace the calls to progress_delay() with a > call to a simpler wrapper that does not let the callers give their > own delay threashold to simplify the API. ... which does not look too bad, but because it makes me wonder if we

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-12 Thread Jeff King
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

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-12 Thread Philip Oakley
From: "Junio C Hamano" Jeff King writes: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote: @@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", _file, N_("add a

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-11 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote: > >> @@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, >> const char *prefix) >> OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", _file, >> N_("add

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

2017-08-10 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote: > @@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const > char *prefix) > OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", _file, > N_("add a signature from a file")), >