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=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_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 10EAB1F406 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:39:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754777AbeAKJjq (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:39:46 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:40986 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753600AbeAKJjq (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:39:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 25764 invoked by uid 109); 11 Jan 2018 09:39:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:39:45 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 21760 invoked by uid 111); 11 Jan 2018 09:40:19 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:40:19 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:39:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:39:43 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Derrick Stolee , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff Hostetler , Ben Peart , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status Message-ID: <20180111093943.GC9190@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180108154822.54829-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> <7b759564-5544-8845-0594-e8342a0b4ba5@gmail.com> <8affe37c-d937-d7e0-fe06-cf7c8db173fa@jeffhostetler.com> <20180109072044.GD32257@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180110074701.GB16315@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 Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > To be clear, which approach are we talking about? I think there are > > three options: > > > > 1. The user tells us not to bother computing real ahead/behind values. > > We always say "same" or "not the same". > > > > 2. The user tells us not to bother computing ahead/behind values > > with more effort than N. After traversing N commits without getting > > an answer, we say "same" or "not the same". But we may sometimes > > give a real answer if we found it within N. > > > > 3. The user tells us not to spend more effort than N. After traversing > > N commits we try to make some partial statement based on > > generations (or commit timestamps as a proxy for them). > > > > I agree that (3) is probably not going to be useful enough in the > > general case to merit the implementation effort and confusion. But is > > there anything wrong with (2)? > > I agree (3) would not be all that interesting. Offhand I do not see > a problem with (2). I think with "real" in your "sometimes give a > real answer" you meant to say that we limit our answers to just one > three ("same", "not the same", "ahead/behind by exactly N/M") and I > think it is a good choice that is easy to explain. Yes, exactly. That's a better way of saying it. -Peff