Re: [PATCH v3] fetch2: implement progress support

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:23:30 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 16:26:10 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > Implement progress reporting support specifically for the fetchers. For
> > fetch tasks we don't necessarily know which fetcher will be used (we
> > might initially be fetching a git:// URI, but if we instead download a
> > mirror tarball we may fetch that over http using wget). These programs
> > also have different abilities as far as reporting progress goes (e.g.
> > wget gives us percentage complete and rate, git gives this some of the
> > time depending on what stage it's at). Additionally we filter out the
> > progress output before it makes it to the logs, in order to prevent the
> > logs filling up with junk.
> > 
> > At the moment this is only implemented for the wget and git fetchers
> > since they are the most commonly used (and svn doesn't seem to support
> > any kind of progress output, at least not without doing a relatively
> > expensive remote file listing first).
> > 
> > Line changes such as the ones you get in git's output as it progresses
> > don't make it to the log files, you only get the final state of the line
> > so the logs aren't filled with progress information that's useless after
> > the fact.
> > 
> > Part of the implementation for [YOCTO #5383].
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes since v2:
> >  * Use -v instead of --show-progress in the wget command line since the
> >  
> >    latter is only available with wget 1.16 and newer, and we still need
> >    to support distros that have older versions than that. This does
> >    override the default of -nv if present (which it will be via the
> >    FETCHCMD_wget set in bitbake.conf within OE), but the added verbosity
> >    is minimal since the progress information is filtered out of the logs
> >    by the progress handler.
> 
> So, you asked me to send this, but unfortunately it looks like you merged
> the old version - I guess I should send an additional patch now.

Wait a second - you didn't merge it at all, sorry my mistake.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre