From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAA21F404 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752136AbeAJUWO (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:14 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:63508 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643AbeAJUWM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:12 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF20B6EE4; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=YQPiLs54EkmDOiTvax6TQYQusUc=; b=dmIRMM ve/HDcJG0WMkjhlfsEXm5/GGYyM+YLAxNAH1hzc97QomXrOI5F+6yNwUvbrtzk2g Qvcu8wFoSRO+yJbA1Xhh/eOtYOYQU9euqmsRkXHrdBTETvokefSBfkI1vWG9La2g 01LEHkbchUdUQZUxOnPc7AFINsdo1RxYs8DVQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ZiquJaZqyxavGuGILos6B/BI9ziezGfI wgxZAPydb7NCxf8DR1l6W7vHyfLgFsxma/2ZjPd8PLGeqcm9zx9vNeTkrXpLWNUY bQ+va9ZtdMLnPO1adc3PebmeeH7kntPmvA+KD9w31dW6Xlnmuu1u210jc3vkIxWS xRnZAjFmlxo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416E8B6EE2; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A339DB6EDE; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Derrick Stolee , Johannes Schindelin , Jeff Hostetler , Ben Peart , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Hostetler Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Add --no-ahead-behind to status References: <20180108154822.54829-1-git@jeffhostetler.com> <7b759564-5544-8845-0594-e8342a0b4ba5@gmail.com> <8affe37c-d937-d7e0-fe06-cf7c8db173fa@jeffhostetler.com> <20180109072044.GD32257@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180110074701.GB16315@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:22:10 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20180110074701.GB16315@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:47:01 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0936228-F643-11E7-8F73-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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.