From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B19C433F5 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 18:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232035AbhLLSvC (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:51:02 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42442 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231985AbhLLSvB (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:51:01 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EFE0C061714 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:51:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id r25so45091307edq.7 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:51:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version; bh=qkSAEkCcg1tPSCPf7oZyV+B4s3M4WBgHYmHXlnPah1E=; b=qauFzXr1NVJEmEAwEsZQzxQOiNb/dirO9sSIFZaeJU4Z8D5s0lEqLYQRXQNnpbnHAR sBmojnmQO+3anGzmOesxPZHqa/NrGUEzTzCwCAGaK45H2yS0RmPXPBaTx1ZhAnIHXO5d +1TPXPkh8pqODotuID7Ag3qF7UgEDA2eG1rAFQ8WyDrRDuctTQiVWcOgjkiqd5p1iS2l 8FRkUkQnHeH+AjNaWCQqHL9YszVx7LopmioeH9JT+Uf4OUvbhFszC9eJ1RPJ+3A+kVem G+LbEenWEydRuNOfJIUFex4ATwtjXxd8tGA7hVtBe+8+lXP2/SvPadNi2HSSv5ELzu7b c4NQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version; bh=qkSAEkCcg1tPSCPf7oZyV+B4s3M4WBgHYmHXlnPah1E=; b=BNkLw85tDnDZjXBxhEFPJJIeEDTiB0ULxMzTKfQvKGm6wKTXtYJkTiFKPZCZ4fuQFn k7quFMI6MkHMdD6cpaf65gWo8tG5FKyTTEnbDE0VxuD48YQ+zoXtcBb0qK9zPXrmwRBi c+ojZr7LRDgmRrhd+w5TN1rJ1VeO41KwS4bG4hxtQwHMz8p1RxQvZ7Hn+BtEfj83qWU0 kObGIlGAUYRBdowT+vk84ke6oVglf6j4RfHARO6tcmokabE0kxWLLcEU6xgwNroswAsn GoQu1zfWcLNEDr9dpGoCBbRtDqXAUXIPQD0agRMlzBqr9bmQdHNLT17cF+UuYELs+kC8 ikVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531N9HB5ojw0qrUB8la3xpOVL/qkVI2UuUJGLoPBP/TUyeS1W4Xf uMqM/uQGS+N8s4Q68UQ/XgoO4cgwcL0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwISyEYkn63xH1PSUui/GDOq2nvDRfXUd/lX9VF2Ac6lmyHC4TLUtjkl/nRdFltQIB7D6m9ew== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d80d:: with SMTP id v13mr57356997edq.7.1639335060090; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:51:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmgdl (j120189.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.120.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ga26sm4682379ejc.11.2021.12.12.10.50.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:50:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1mwTw3-000Zxd-8D; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:50:59 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Subject: ab/only-single-progress-at-once (was: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2021, #03; Fri, 10)) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:41:38 +0100 References: User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.6.10 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <211212.86sfuxac8c.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 10 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * ab/only-single-progress-at-once (2021-11-03) 8 commits > - progress.c: add & assert a "global_progress" variable > - various *.c: use isatty(0|2), not isatty(STDIN_FILENO|STDERR_FILENO) > - pack-bitmap-write.c: don't return without stop_progress() > - progress.c: add temporary variable from progress struct > - progress.c tests: test some invalid usage > - progress.c tests: make start/stop commands on stdin > - progress.c test helper: add missing braces > - leak tests: fix a memory leaks in "test-progress" helper > > Further tweaks on progress API. > > Needs review. > The last three rounds has seen little reaction, even though earlier > round saw a lot of responses. The latest round needs a serious > review or at least Acks from past commentors. > source: I think less in "needs review" and more in needing a tiebreaker and/or reply to my [1]. I.e. the ongoing discussion SZEDER and I have had about the relative danger of adding this BUG() to this part of the code. I think the best thing to do is just to merge it to "next". Maybe I'm wrong about the BUG() not triggering in a way that someone will spot if we expose this more widely. But we've been having some version of that discussion for the past few months without any any new specifics about *how* it might be raised, just (I think it's fair to say) general paranoia that it might happen somehow/somewhere. Which is fair enough, but I'd think a good way forward with it would be to give it wider exposure during this cycle. If it's triggered somehow it's trivial to amend/revert the tip commit to remove the assertion. If we merge it down I promise I'll (and try to remember to, putting it in my calendar if so...) start some discussion before the next release about whether we'll want to cut the release with that BUG(), which if we don't trigger it by then we'll probably feel confident about keeping. Does that sound like a good way forward? Otherwise the "one alternative way forward[...]" mentioned in [1] is something we could do. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211203.868rx2t0hv.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/