Re: [Patch] Prevent cloning over http from spewing

[Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Tay Ray Chuan<rctay89@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Jeff King<peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>
>>        Fetching %s (got %d packs, %d loose): (%d/%d)
>>
> Hmm, just wondering, is this is the intended display for "-q" or "-v"?
> Or should I do isatty(), like builtin-pack-objects.c does for the
> "Writing objects" progress indicator?

by the way, I have updated http-progress-indicators based on your suggestions.

What I have now is:

 Fetching %d objects (got %d of %d, %d alt)[, and %s]: 100%
(32077585/32077585), 30.59 MiB, done.

where

1. %d objects = number of concurrent objects being fetched, usually
around 4-5. Since objects are fetched alongside other files like packs
and pack indices, I separated this from (4).

2. got %d of %d = a count of loose objects. I haven't done counting of
packs yet, but it shouldn't be very hard.

3. %d alt = number of alternate objects. The way I'm counting them now
is very inaccurate; I may drop this if it's too complicated to do an
accurate count. I added this because some people use forked repos, and
they may wonder why after some time, the number of objects fetched
doesn't increase. (The time was spent on waiting for the server, only
for it to return a 404).

4. [, and %s] = an "optional" field that gets displayed when packs,
pack indices, etc. (everything except objects) are being fetched. The
byte counts are for this fetch, not the object fetch(es).

How about pack file verification? Some pack files are monstrous, and
can take some time to verify. Is it desirable to fit in pack file
verification into the same "Fetching..." line? Verification is a
per-file thing, so it should deserve the same treatment that "Getting
pack ..." lines got.

-- 
Cheers,
Ray Chuan