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: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4737D1F910 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229628AbiKOSHM (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:07:12 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56208 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231276AbiKOSGs (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:06:48 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-f174.google.com (mail-il1-f174.google.com [209.85.166.174]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D098413F7F for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-il1-f174.google.com with SMTP id x16so7804345ilm.5 for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:06:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=f7njmfg1SJPbgqPXJ/RdJYFMwMzn2D41/jrpZ680Wtk=; b=Pwbeu5dM3fTM+qug8RKLF9SK2SjTOG20lpqv+dSixHtrV4Mi/YXErSBOrfHeCl6GQE 7Svr0JTuwSSjxb44P76OudbeGinDlTnRUCY5BKmQqGuI/ZKYJYtFpbChiRwWNRq2FaMO PAts3G2jMb2hEvUDy3NsIHX2zhQeXhdOUgFZmNz2hfX/YMKbUmL05F1C3MSCTqs+5nvK Wz2UDNi/1i3fV/pwLPqoI4ItGpl7BpwkSI8bim9jkDdEeoZmTV1rxclWSHnW80ZUkpOE tmgHh2liUXEwvpJZFvaC1JDrJ8601XSwvddY08ymsZiAewATW6x6pfw+kxAK8O+bF6h0 vgRA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plEysqQ6YZBKG07zLb2Nt19Tow0EYgjrT4ubPO73tVpRf44gUw9 7rgvf2i0AHzdx9AptQAp6TTYTrHYzK43gusaZG8/vhR9Cq4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf7sXTKe8dtYvpAshAvUaZ3M/E9y6+LDAHXwiWvoC3/K0bUb1DWcgv7ZTS86iVsJVUkSZmOGYfzSIO8sYvQx4fA= X-Received: by 2002:a92:2612:0:b0:302:557a:dba7 with SMTP id n18-20020a922612000000b00302557adba7mr6145644ile.249.1668535606089; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:06:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 13:06:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] status: long status advice adapted to recent capabilities To: Rudy Rigot Cc: Rudy Rigot via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Hostetler , Taylor Blau , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Derrick Stolee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:46 PM Rudy Rigot wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, and I'll integrate it into a new patch, most > likely today. Thanks. I think this is _almost_ there; much more polished than earlier iterations. Hopefully, one final reroll will make it complete. > > To what does "this" refer? Is it this repository? Or something else? > > Hah, good point. The accurate answer is "the status of currently > existing files is being cached, and we'll watch what files changed > after now so we only run things on those next time". Obviously that > would be too verbose for the inexperienced user hitting this, really > this line is here to convey "if you run it again, it's probably going > to be faster". > > Here are some ideas: > - "but this result is currently being cached." > - "but git status results are currently being cached." (true but not > perfectly accurate since index updates don't only happen on git > status) > - "but untracked files are currently being cached." (not completely > accurate, I believe the index is updated for all files; the untracked > files are only the interesting ones for this specific performance > consideration) > - "but the results were cached, and your next runs may be faster." > > I could use some guidance on what would make most sense here. I > strongly feel like the user should know of it since that's been what's > been confusing the users of our very large repo specifically when > their git status is temporarily slow; but I don't have any opinions at > all about the right phrasing. For now, I'm planning to use the latter > bullet point in my next patch because it's the most explicit, but I'd > be glad to apply someone else's take on this instead. Reading the proposals while wearing the hat of someone who has never had to deal with speeding up untracked-file bookkeeping and who may not even know that remedies are available (as discussed in the documentation), I find that the first three bullet points convey no meaning at all; they leave the reader hanging. The final bullet point, on the other hand, tells the user something conclusive. I _very_ much prefer the final proposal. (In "but the results were cached, and your next runs may be faster.", I might suggest dropping "your" -- i.e. "... and subsequent runs may be faster".)