list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: Jeff King <>
Cc: Derrick Stolee <>,
	Johannes Schindelin <>,
	Jeff Hostetler <>,
	Ben Peart <>,, Jeff Hostetler <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:22:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:47:01 -0500")

Jeff King <> writes:

> To be clear, which approach are we talking about? I think there are
> three options:
>   1. The user tells us not to bother computing real ahead/behind values.
>      We always say "same" or "not the same".
>   2. The user tells us not to bother computing ahead/behind values
>      with more effort than N. After traversing N commits without getting
>      an answer, we say "same" or "not the same". But we may sometimes
>      give a real answer if we found it within N.
>   3. The user tells us not to spend more effort than N. After traversing
>      N commits we try to make some partial statement based on
>      generations (or commit timestamps as a proxy for them).
> I agree that (3) is probably not going to be useful enough in the
> general case to merit the implementation effort and confusion. But is
> there anything wrong with (2)?

I agree (3) would not be all that interesting.  Offhand I do not see
a problem with (2).  I think with "real" in your "sometimes give a
real answer" you meant to say that we limit our answers to just one
three ("same", "not the same", "ahead/behind by exactly N/M") and I
think it is a good choice that is easy to explain.

We might be able to say things other than these three, namely,
"ahead by no more than N, behind by no more than M", but I do not
know if that is useful or merely more confusing than it's worth.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-10 20:22 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
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 [this message]
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).