On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> If an object is reused, we already know its compressed size. If it's
>> not reused and is a loose object, we could use on-disk size. It's a
>> lot harder to estimate an not-reused, deltified object. All we have is
>> the uncompressed size, and
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:21:59PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Michael Haggerty
> wrote:
> > Would it be practical to change it to a percentage of bytes written?
> > Then we'd have progress info that is both convenient *and* truthful.
>
> I agreed for a second, t
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Would it be practical to change it to a percentage of bytes written?
> Then we'd have progress info that is both convenient *and* truthful.
I agreed for a second, then remembered that we don't know the final
pack size until we finish writ
On 03/13/2014 11:07 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:01:09PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
>>> It would definitely be good to have throughput measurements while
>>> writing out the pack. However, I'm not sure we have anything useful to
>>> count. We know the total number of objects
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 06:07:54PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> 3. Use the regular "Writing objects" progress, but fake the object
> count. We know we are writing M bytes with N objects. Bump the
> counter by 1 for every M/N bytes we write.
Here is that strategy. I think it looks pretty
Jeff King writes:
> There are a few ways around this:
>
> 1. Add a new phase "Writing packs" which counts from 0 to 1. Even
> though it's more accurate, moving from 0 to 1 really isn't that
> useful (the throughput is, but the 0/1 just looks like noise).
>
> 2. Add a new phase "Writ
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 03:01:09PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> > It would definitely be good to have throughput measurements while
> > writing out the pack. However, I'm not sure we have anything useful to
> > count. We know the total number of objects we're reusing, but we're not
> > actually pa
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:21:21PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
>
>> Today I tried pushing a copy of linux.git from a client that had
>> bitmaps into a JGit server. The client stalled for a long time with no
>> progress, because it reused the exist
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 05:21:21PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> Today I tried pushing a copy of linux.git from a client that had
> bitmaps into a JGit server. The client stalled for a long time with no
> progress, because it reused the existing pack. No progress appeared
> while it was sending the
Today I tried pushing a copy of linux.git from a client that had
bitmaps into a JGit server. The client stalled for a long time with no
progress, because it reused the existing pack. No progress appeared
while it was sending the existing file on the wire:
$ git push git://localhost/linux.git mas
10 matches
Mail list logo