Re: run-command: output owner picking strategy

2016-05-20 Thread Junio C Hamano
Stefan Beller writes: > I choose "as much live output" as an approximation of "least amount buffered > over time, i.e. if you were to integrate the buffer size over time > that should be > minimized. (c.f. users waiting for output: http://imgur.com/gallery/lhjhbB9) > I am not

Re: run-command: output owner picking strategy

2016-05-20 Thread Stefan Beller
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 11:29 AM, William Duclot wrote: >> When running in parallel we already may be out of order >> (relative to serial processing). See the second example in the >> commit message to produce a different order. > > Right, I could (should)

Re: run-command: output owner picking strategy

2016-05-20 Thread William Duclot
> When running in parallel we already may be out of order > (relative to serial processing). See the second example in the > commit message to produce a different order. Right, I could (should) have understood that by myself. > Consider we scheduled tasks to be run in 3 parallel processes: >

Re: run-command: output owner picking strategy

2016-05-20 Thread Stefan Beller
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 6:11 AM, William Duclot wrote: > Hi, > I stumbled upon this piece of code (run-command.c:pp_collect_finish()), > picking the owner > of the output amongst parallel processes (introduced by Stephan Beller in > commit

run-command: output owner picking strategy

2016-05-20 Thread William Duclot
Hi, I stumbled upon this piece of code (run-command.c:pp_collect_finish()), picking the owner of the output amongst parallel processes (introduced by Stephan Beller in commit c553c72eed64b5f7316ce227f6d5d783eae6f2ed) /* * Pick next process to output live. * NEEDSWORK: * For now we pick it