From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsck: print progress Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:18:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20111103211819.GA17341@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111103033325.GA10230@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1320310234-11243-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> <20111103193826.GB19483@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vd3d9f0u8.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111103195147.GA21318@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vnxeyrp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111103202954.GC19483@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vwrbhdixe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 03 22:18:29 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RM4g9-0000ep-49 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:18:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751862Ab1KCVSY (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:18:24 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:33042 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751321Ab1KCVSY (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:18:24 -0400 Received: (qmail 28149 invoked by uid 107); 3 Nov 2011 21:24:14 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:24:14 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:18:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vwrbhdixe.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:56:13PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > So you would agree that we are better summing the objects for all packs > > and showing one big progress bar? > > If it can be done without sacrificing the clarity of the code, compared to > the "we will do new and smaller ones first so in practice it does not > matter" approach taken by the patch in question, I would not mind it, but > to be honest, I do not deeply care either way. I looked briefly at doing this. It's a little annoying with the verify_packs code, because you have to pass around the "how far are we into the progress" counter separately. But I confess I don't care that much either way, either. With the two minor fixups I sent in my original review, I think Duy's patch would be OK by me. -Peff