list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff Hostetler <>
To: Ben Peart <>,
	Jeff Hostetler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:04:20 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 1/8/2018 2:49 PM, Ben Peart wrote:
> On 1/8/2018 10:48 AM, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>> From: Jeff Hostetler <>
>> This is version 4 of my patch series to avoid expensive ahead/behind
>> calculations in status.  This version removes the last commit containing
>> the experimental config setting.  And removes the undefined return values
>> for the nr_ahead/nr_behind arguments as discussed on the mailing list.
> While I like the simplicity of just turning this off completely, I do wonder if we could come up with a better user experience.  For example, could we somehow limit the time spent computing the before/after and if it exceeds that limit, drop back to saying they are "different" rather than computing the exact number of commits before/after.
> I was thinking about something similar to the logic we use today about whether to start reporting progress on other long commands. That would mean you could still get the ahead/behind values if you aren't that far behind but would only get "different" if that calculation gets too expensive (which implies the actual value isn't going to be all that helpful anyway).

After a off-line conversation with the others I'm going to look into
a version that is limited to n commits rather than be completely on or
off.  I think if you are for example less than 100 a/b then those numbers
have value; if you are past n, then they have much less value.

I'd rather do it by a fixed limit than by time to ensure that output
is predictable on graph shape and not on system load.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-08 20:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-08 15:48 Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-08 15:48 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] stat_tracking_info: return +1 when branches not equal Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-08 15:48 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] status: add --[no-]ahead-behind to status and commit for V2 format Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-08 15:48 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] status: update short status to respect --no-ahead-behind Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-08 15:48 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] status: support --no-ahead-behind in long format Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-08 19:49 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status Ben Peart
2018-01-08 20:04   ` Jeff Hostetler [this message]
2018-01-09  7:20     ` Jeff King
2018-01-09 13:15       ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-01-09 14:29         ` Derrick Stolee
2018-01-09 14:56           ` Jeff Hostetler
2018-01-09 16:48           ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-01-10  7:47           ` Jeff King
2018-01-10 20:22             ` Junio C Hamano
2018-01-11  9:39               ` Jeff King
2018-01-10  7:41         ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).