From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Be more verbose when checkout takes a long time Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:37:46 -0800 Message-ID: <7vzltrz4cl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v8x1b1fiu.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 23 23:38:52 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JT312-0007TO-5T for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:38:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754016AbYBWWiJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:38:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754026AbYBWWiI (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:38:08 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:33729 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752797AbYBWWiH (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:38:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16BA1A31; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:38:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4AE1A30; Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:37:59 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:32:35 -0800 (PST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Linus Torvalds writes: >> >> > So I find it irritating when git thinks for a long time without telling me >> > what's taking so long. And by "long time" I definitely mean less than two >> > seconds, which is already way too long for me. >> >> Do you mean more than two or less than two? > > I mean that "long time" starts at a point that is less than two seconds. > > Anything over a second is a long time for me. > >> Geez you are impatient ;-). > > I like to call it "discerning in my time usage". > >> The other user of start_progress_delay uses 95% as cutoff. and >> probably 50% was too low, but that may just be bikeshedding. > > I did think that 50% was a bit low, and considered upping it to 75, but > with the one-second thing it wasn't as much of a deal any more. > >> I agree. Perhaps we can add some message when "-m" codepath >> falls back to the three-way merge to make "merge-error" less >> scary. Perhaps like: > > Sounds sane to me. Ok, then. Unfortunately it will be short-lived on 'master' as I have been planning to merge Daniel's rewrite soon ;-)