Eric Sunshine writes:
> I suppose a viable approach might be to test once outside the loop if
> "date +%s" is supported and print the "(%d elapsed / %d estimated
> remaining)" annotation within the loop if it is, else not. The test
> might look something like this:
>
> echo $(date +%s) | grep -q
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 03:40:20PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> I suppose a viable approach might be to test once outside the loop if
> "date +%s" is supported and print the "(%d elapsed / %d estimated
> remaining)" annotation within the loop if it is, else not. The test
> might look something lik
(please don't top-post on this list)
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> I would argue against the every n commit check, or at least making it
> configurable, as in my case the speed is something between 0.01 and
> 1.5 seconds per commit. Checking it every n commit would make
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> I would argue against the every n commit check, or at least making it
> configurable, as in my case the speed is something between 0.01 and
> 1.5 seconds per commit. Checking it every n commit would make it I
> feel quite slow to adapt. But it
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2445198/get-seconds-since-epoch-in-any-posix-compliant-shell
>>> Found this,
>>>
>>> awk 'BEGIN{srand();print srand()}'
>>>
>>> srand() in awk returns the previous seed value, and calling it without
>>>
I would argue against the every n commit check, or at least making it
configurable, as in my case the speed is something between 0.01 and
1.5 seconds per commit. Checking it every n commit would make it I
feel quite slow to adapt. But it's debatable.
On 8/30/15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunsh
Eric Sunshine writes:
>>> Most portable likely would be Perl, however, that's probably too
>>> heavyweight inside a loop like this, even if called only once each N
>>> iterations.
I think that is true. Now, when it is too heavy to spawn perl,
would it be light enough to spawn awk, I have to won
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
>>> Reading after it, I think the most close we can get with this is, awk
>>> 'BEGIN { print strftime("%c", 1271603087); };
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> this can work instead of the data command for getting the time
> elapsed, however for getting the actual date of a timestamp is not
> possible generally; so I think I will just remove that part.
> Bernát GÁBOR
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10
this can work instead of the data command for getting the time
elapsed, however for getting the actual date of a timestamp is not
possible generally; so I think I will just remove that part.
Bernát GÁBOR
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:15 AM,
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> (Please don't top-post on this list.)
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
>> Reading after it, I think the most close we can get with this is, awk
>> 'BEGIN { print strftime("%c", 1271603087); }; and just ignore setting
(Please don't top-post on this list.)
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> Reading after it, I think the most close we can get with this is, awk
> 'BEGIN { print strftime("%c", 1271603087); }; and just ignore setting
> this value (and avoid displaying it) if that fails too. Do
Reading after it, I think the most close we can get with this is, awk
'BEGIN { print strftime("%c", 1271603087); }; and just ignore setting
this value (and avoid displaying it) if that fails too. Do you agree?
Bernát GÁBOR
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> Amended, the latest version is at https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/
> :)
> Does this looks okay, should I create a patch from this?
Excerpt:
now=$(date +%s)
elapsed=$(($now - $start))
remaining_second=$((...))
eta=$
Amended, the latest version is at https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/ :)
Bernát GÁBOR
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here's what I ended up using, and seemed to work well:
> https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/766841bc1b726a5d6e7e051938b8297536869
Hello,
Here's what I ended up using, and seemed to work well:
https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/766841bc1b726a5d6e7e051938b82975368695a0
Does this looks okay, should I create a patch from this?
Thanks,
Bernát GÁBOR
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 20
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:12:54PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > A little googling came up with:
> >
> > awk 'END { print systime() }' >
> > which probably (?) works everywhere.
>
> On Mac OS X and FreeBSD:
>
> $ awk 'END { print systime() }' awk: calling undefined function systi
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:52:10PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that would probably be a good solution, assuming there is a
>> portable "how many seconds" (I do not relish the thought of
>> reconstructing it based on the current hours/minut
I would lean for an extra on-demand flag for this, and a per commit
measurement, initial noise is okay for the first iteration I think.
Secondly note that on the output other messages could also be present
(other than the rewrite), as the command running may have its own
output. I will try to creat
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 02:52:10PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Yeah, that would probably be a good solution, assuming there is a
> portable "how many seconds" (I do not relish the thought of
> reconstructing it based on the current hours/minutes/seconds).
A little googling came up with:
awk 'E
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:33:49AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > +start=$(date +%s)
>
> Is that a GNU extension?
Thanks, I meant to mention that, too. POSIX has "+" formats, but
apparently no way to get an integer number of seconds. I don't know how
widely "%s" is supp
Jeff King writes:
> +start=$(date +%s)
Is that a GNU extension?
> git_filter_branch__commit_count=0
> while read commit parents; do
> git_filter_branch__commit_count=$(($git_filter_branch__commit_count+1))
> - printf "\rRewrite $commit ($git_filter_branch__commit_count/$commits)"
>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 05:01:01PM +0200, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> So it would be great if the filter-branch beside the Rewrite
> f8f0b351ae35ff7ac4bd58078cbba1aa34243779 (523/22625), would also
> append a basic ETA signaling the end of the operation.
>
> It could be as simple as the the average num
Hello,
So it would be great if the filter-branch beside the Rewrite
f8f0b351ae35ff7ac4bd58078cbba1aa34243779 (523/22625), would also
append a basic ETA signaling the end of the operation.
It could be as simple as the the average number of milliseconds per
step up to this point multiplied with the
24 matches
Mail list logo
