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-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 615561F4B4 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 22:43:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728350AbgIIWnA (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:43:00 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58116 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727782AbgIIWm7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:42:59 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x449.google.com (mail-pf1-x449.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::449]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DA73C061573 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x449.google.com with SMTP id 8so3183260pfx.6 for ; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:42:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject :from:to:cc; bh=DK56Cawx01L9mpyY6nbpwokC3teUE7DrEPOc28+KbPk=; b=adQBDiehN9Y2rLNGmEM5sQSDKoOAqJagBf4AHptQHlkK7nvZ84KCMHyf3JSsd6ut25 V+jRz3Ty7tdEMlot92MAKxgOxWOMguhjayK38xLQJQNs1lJlHlucGGFPnzEOJVyGBPXn DgK1pzYWURLz0tB1lPHjOD/txp48rhVsMneTXOlVt3gH9DdMsDIkpT/TfqLwjZqroYet j8CNa6eBreNVZkbNVAA4llz8lXM/Edeyz+zle4ip9ZAsLRFwNPWVbzoUjN7QCM1f3l7h KQEtPT1i2HzvjqWhsksR8R5z9Zqvhl0bnvlMHSH6L8/6qMOcLZm+G8IziwMfiYM0nVK/ uVxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=DK56Cawx01L9mpyY6nbpwokC3teUE7DrEPOc28+KbPk=; b=pjMa5QUKuDChZI0XDhO5ZmU8885SREIp7MzKQPP8lB0d/3D4gLCjmINV2VA5+5/lXG TJ7i9L2Q4E/zYA7jWW7ED4QFawumWYjzE4yWoN6ZrsxJVW43JsZkL5kjlCnYnbSQV05Q 1H9FgVAPlIy44LbudKauiJoDBJvgHxfwAkyMoHI0G28yQg6WivHcoJ819aXvELnKQVH9 1w6bjexkCOcBbQOlS+Q3uEs8eYTxbocvW53LZ//lpOAADoi54Fq0lMjZyvRVx5twjW5C SrQ+RRKRhxrKAiZSmXv9IMMxILkcq9r8PDDufp5sbMjAzeTmjOP8ojAZvoGL4RvstHHA Eemw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ohK164v328645Kqbf5bOIjo1s90sEyQe2OxTJDZ52/GJFbd7+ W+EamHYpNIVnHx9j8HaMrp+tSlyO5Hpv7xRaUYWk X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJySul83MS632gl3AwVpZs8d4UU5ljABg6bskxV60vj4zJR5qZg2oMEkn08owtNWuByfHeUJXxKUAqX6OHBIIWhq X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:10:24:72f4:c0a8:18d]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:90b:15c6:: with SMTP id lh6mr235654pjb.0.1599691375963; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 15:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 15:42:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20200909224253.866718-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.28.0.526.ge36021eeef-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] progress: create progress struct in 'verbose' mode From: Jonathan Tan To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: emilyshaffer@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Tan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Emily Shaffer writes: > > > >> The main concern I saw here was "we are doing a lot of work that isn't > >> used if the user doesn't want to log traces" - should I approach a > >> reroll of this topic by trying to be smarter about whether to set > >> 'quiet' or 'print' or 'verbose' or whatever it is renamed to, based on > >> whether there is a trace destination? Then for systems which are logging > >> traces the extra work is worth it, but for everyone else it can function > >> as before. > >> > >> I don't love it from a design perspective - it feels a little like > >> progress module is looking a little too closely at trace module > >> internals. > > > > Isn't that primarily due to the decision to tie progress and trace > > too closely? If so, perhaps that needs to be revisited? > > Or the "too close coupling" needs to be accepted as the cost of > doing so (as "progress is often a good cue for an event worth > tracing" was a convenient way to cheat by programmers not to spend > too many braincycles to decide adding trace points---they > automatically got them when they decided to show progress output). I wouldn't describe it as "cheat", but I agree with the general sentiment - in general, I would think that if something is lengthy enough to need to indicate progress to the user, we should trace its performance.