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

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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", &signature_file,
>>>  N_("add a signature from a file")),
>>>  OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("don't print the patch filenames")),
>>> + OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &show_progress,
>>> + N_("show progress while generating patches")),
>>
>> Earlier I suggested allowing --progress="custom text" since this may be
>> driven as plumbing for other commands. But I don't think there's any
>> need to worry about it now. It can be added seamlessly later if we find
>> such a caller.
>>
>>> @@ -1752,8 +1757,12 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, 
>>> const char *prefix)
>>>  start_number--;
>>>  }
>>>  rev.add_signoff = do_signoff;
>>> +
>>> + if (show_progress)
>>> + 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 a couple
>> of 1's. It probably doesn't matter, but just a curiosity.
>
> Yeah, I also thought 2-second was what we used by default.  Perhaps
> we would want to bring others in line?

<bikeshed> Surely the choice should depend on the purpose of the delay. IIRC 
the 1 second between patches on the formal 'sent' time was simply to ensure 
the patches had the right sequence. Delays for warnings and progress have 
different purposes, so I think it's more about the purpose than 
standardising the time (along with expectations [least surprise] if other 
messages are displayed).
--
Philip