Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] unpack-trees: add performance tracing

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:52 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > It's not just sampling points. There's things like index id being
>> > shown in the message for example. I prefer to keep free style format
>> > to help me read. There's also things like indentation I do here to
>> > help me read.
>>
>> Yup, I do not think that contradicts with the approach to have a
>> single unified "data collection" API; you should also be able to
>> specify how that collection of data is to be presented in the trace
>> messages meant for humans, which would be discarded when emitting
>> json but would be used when showing human-readble trace, no?
>
> Yes. As Peff also pointed out in another mail, as long as this
> structured logging stuff does not stop me from manual trace messages
> and don't force more work on me when I add new traces, I don't care if
> it exists.

I am hoping that we are on the same page, but just to make sure,
what I think we would want is to have just a single set of
annotations in the codepath, instead of "we can add annotations from
these two separate sets, and they do not interfere each other so I
do not care about what the other guy is doing".

IOW, I found it highly annoying having to resolve merges like
7234f27b ("Merge branch 'nd/unpack-trees-with-cache-tree' into pu",
2018-08-14), taking two topics that try to use different tracing
mechanisms in the same codepath.