Nice to see you back, Junio!
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantor...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Will also affect annotate
>
> Is that a good thing? In any case, make it understandable without
> the title line (i.e. make it a full sentence, ending with a full
> stop).
>
Will make the explanation a little more verbose. About being a bad
thing, I don't see how, it's just the same functionality. You think I
should turn it off if using annotate?
>> + if (progress) {
>> + for (next = suspect->suspects; next !=
>> NULL;
>> + next = next->next)
>> + blamed_lines +=
>> next->num_lines;
>> + display_progress(progress,
>> blamed_lines);
>> + }
>
> Is this math and the placement of the code correct? It would
> probably be more obvious if this hunk is in found_guilty_entry(),
> which is already the dedicated function in which we report about a
> group of lines whose ultimate origin has become clear.
>
I'll see what I can do about it.
>
> Two comments.
>
> * How does this interact with incremental or porcelain blame?
> Shouldn't progress be turned off when these modes are in use?
Given that they are supposed to be for machine consumption, I'll turn
progress off is using one of them.
>
> * Shouldn't progress be turned off if the result comes very
> quickly, using start_progress_delay()?
>
Ok. Default values as in checkout? 50, 1?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
