Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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.

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status

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