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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9090E1F66E for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726731AbgHQWtw (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58892 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726245AbgHQWtw (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:52 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028B570FEB; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=x6PLbKCfeC1qnlxesmjKDzaGrn0=; b=Mgq3XP YoZxWVJzm3Ds7v6KO1frLSvz6sYKiJZSGkbU3E8ns3Xhx8vBcokAHoTMSSZ+xcmn hn7qlYun6WzTvJ3xmdLy5NJeGgrQgrkzBjMZYVqv3klOY894vbqmm/EdhfaY0DDh Pm0rZNu1Jkm4ddw/YwEJ4TAfvirH3JZExmVeQ= 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=GTjPSeMrL5QF2YBhOP+2Ct7s8DnhNa60 FvSvR9J/Sr9jSKXXN9vR6iCrh7Ld4dpQo0mG/J8n0U/4+izj53YKCLkgtWCDeCd8 ya6LNP+DvYKnV0akqzjMeTG8Jl2acQJkj0j3Fuj6qhUN0FaASN6D8LP5WEXdQELX yVxvZRL1few= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF8970FEA; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E3D370FE9; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 18:49:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] progress: create progress struct in 'verbose' mode References: <20200710014242.1088216-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200710014242.1088216-2-emilyshaffer@google.com> <20200714001504.GI3189386@google.com> <20200817221938.GA331156@google.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:49:48 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:44:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F480157C-E0DB-11EA-86B3-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Emily Shaffer writes: > >> The main concern I saw here was "we are doing a lot of work that isn't >> used if the user doesn't want to log traces" - should I approach a >> reroll of this topic by trying to be smarter about whether to set >> 'quiet' or 'print' or 'verbose' or whatever it is renamed to, based on >> whether there is a trace destination? Then for systems which are logging >> traces the extra work is worth it, but for everyone else it can function >> as before. >> >> I don't love it from a design perspective - it feels a little like >> progress module is looking a little too closely at trace module >> internals. > > Isn't that primarily due to the decision to tie progress and trace > too closely? If so, perhaps that needs to be revisited? Or the "too close coupling" needs to be accepted as the cost of doing so (as "progress is often a good cue for an event worth tracing" was a convenient way to cheat by programmers not to spend too many braincycles to decide adding trace points---they automatically got them when they decided to show progress output). > > I dunno.