Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email protected]> writes:
> Before this change the "commit-graph write" command didn't report any
Please describe the pre-patch state in present tense without "Before
this change".
> progress. On my machine this command takes more than 10 seconds to
> write the graph for linux.git, and around 1m30s on the
> 2015-04-03-1M-git.git[1] test repository, which is a test case for
> larger monorepos.
>
> Furthermore, since the gc.writeCommitGraph setting was added in
> d5d5d7b641 ("gc: automatically write commit-graph files", 2018-06-27),
> there was no indication at all from a "git gc" run that anything was
> different. This why one of the progress bars being added here uses
"This is why", I guess.
> start_progress() instead of start_delayed_progress(), so that it's
> guaranteed to be seen. E.g. on my tiny 867 commit dotfiles.git
> repository:
>
> $ git -c gc.writeCommitGraph=true gc
> Enumerating objects: 2821, done.
> [...]
> Total 2821 (delta 1670), reused 2821 (delta 1670)
> Computing commit graph generation numbers: 100% (867/867), done.
>
> On larger repositories, such as linux.git the delayed progress bar(s)
"such as linux.git, the delayed ..."
> With --stdin-packs we don't show any estimation of how much is left to
> do. This is because we might be processing more than one pack. We
> could be less lazy here and show progress, either detect by detecting
> that we're only processing one pack, or by first looping over the
> packs to discover how many commits they have. I don't see the point in
I do not know if there is no point, but if we were to do it, I think
slurping the list of packs and computing the number of objects is
not all that bad.
> static void compute_generation_numbers(struct packed_commit_list* commits)
> {
> int i;
> struct commit_list *list = NULL;
> + struct progress *progress = NULL;
>
> + progress = start_progress(
> + _("Computing commit graph generation numbers"), commits->nr);
> for (i = 0; i < commits->nr; i++) {
> + display_progress(progress, i);
> if (commits->list[i]->generation != GENERATION_NUMBER_INFINITY
> &&
> commits->list[i]->generation != GENERATION_NUMBER_ZERO)
> continue;
I am wondering if the progress call should be moved after this
conditional continue; would we want to count the entry whose
generation is already known here? Of course, as we give commits->nr
as the 100% ceiling, we cannot avoid doing so, but it somehow smells
wrong.
