From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167B220899 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:08:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752962AbdHNXIc (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:08:32 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:38748 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752816AbdHNXIc (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:08:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 30391 invoked by uid 109); 14 Aug 2017 23:08:32 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 23:08:32 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 6911 invoked by uid 111); 14 Aug 2017 23:08:56 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:08:56 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:08:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:08:30 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Philip Oakley , Kevin Willford , git@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Willford Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches Message-ID: <20170814230829.4elsuvosezybw3qn@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170531150427.7820-1-kewillf@microsoft.com> <20170810183256.12668-2-kewillf@microsoft.com> <20170810232033.46ujnozvnodkguog@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170813043940.muj7z3dvl3nh4k6a@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170814222947.edvuz7b2hxuwcsqj@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 onto the person writing > > the calling code, though (especially when we are just now puzzling out > > the method for making such a decision from first principles). > > > > So I'd vote to drop that parameter entirely. And if 1 second seems > > noticeably snappier, then we should probably just move everything to a 1 > > second delay (I don't have a strong feeling either way). > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > I've already locally tweaked Kevin's patch to use (0,2) instead of > (0,1) without introducing the simpler wrapper. It should be trivial > to do a wrapper to catch and migrate all the (0,2) users to a > start_delayed_progress() that takes neither percentage or time with > mechanical replacement. I was actually proposing to move (50,1) cases to the simpler wrapper, too. IOW, drop the delayed_percent_treshold code entirely. -Peff