From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD051F670 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232679AbhJYJk3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:40:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64891 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232500AbhJYJk2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:40:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1350BD8786; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:38:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=aQn/E0CsPYdIFOZBwJaHxh3IZ uwRubxs8mVYe18uCXc=; b=ESIFLxte9dVRk3RuKVveCeWfgD3LhFFP1Y3mR/yDd 5IuTRhBpXZzb2guT72DQ2VM7zlEJHAqZUAisHkma+MIXoJHZNAAHb8ifQdWJnt1a fwE/BDoYw82N6YpTq6FfEMwutGHA6zHlDC/I6CW3ygnVAI1bs8xUpA3uCezqIvLq /A= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DF0D8785; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:38:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.133.2.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5032FD8784; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 05:38:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9?= Scharfe , Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] progress.c: add & assert a "global_progress" variable References: <20211025050202.GC2101@szeder.dev> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 02:38:04 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 413BFCC8-3577-11EC-8D42-62A2C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org SZEDER G=C3=A1bor writes: > I still very much dislike the idea of a BUG() in the progress code > that can trigger outside of the test suite, because the progress line > is only a UI gimmick and not a crucial part of any Git operation, and > even though a progress line might be buggy, the underlying Git > operation is not affected by it and would still finish successfully, > as was the case with the dozen of so progress line bugs in the past. I too recall that we have fixed numerous bugs in the past year in the area, but weren't they kind of obvious ones _once_ they are pointed out at you (e.g. progress never reaching to 100%)? Yet the developers have failed to catch them because their eyes would coast over without paying attention to them, exactly because the progress bar is merely a UI gimmick. I haven't formed a firm opinion on this yet, but I think the idea behind these BUG() is to help such problems be caught while they are still in the lab. You may not notice when your live progress bar behaved a bit funny, but if you hit a BUG(), that would be squarely in your face and you cannot ignore it.