Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] format-patch: have progress option while generating patches

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:18:09 -0700

Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 02:32:55PM -0400, Kevin Willford wrote:
>
>> @@ -1493,6 +1496,8 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  		OPT_FILENAME(0, "signature-file", &signature_file,
>>  				N_("add a signature from a file")),
>>  		OPT__QUIET(&quiet, N_("don't print the patch filenames")),
>> +		OPT_BOOL(0, "progress", &show_progress,
>> +			 N_("show progress while generating patches")),
>
> Earlier I suggested allowing --progress="custom text" since this may be
> driven as plumbing for other commands. But I don't think there's any
> need to worry about it now. It can be added seamlessly later if we find
> such a caller.
>
>> @@ -1752,8 +1757,12 @@ int cmd_format_patch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>>  		start_number--;
>>  	}
>>  	rev.add_signoff = do_signoff;
>> +
>> +	if (show_progress)
>> +		progress = start_progress_delay(_("Generating patches"), total, 0, 1);
>
> I don't really have an opinion on a 1 second delay versus 2. I thought
> we used 2 pretty consistently, though grepping around I do see a couple
> of 1's. It probably doesn't matter, but just a curiosity.

Yeah, I also thought 2-second was what we used by default.  Perhaps
we would want to bring others in line?