Re: New progress meters

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

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:06:46 Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 7/19/16 11:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 19 July 2016 at 10:21, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com
> > 
> > <mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com>> wrote:
> >     Thanks.  I was mostly asking to see what the expected "user
> >     experience"
> >     should be since the webkitgtk (which takes FOREVER to build) seemed a
> >     bit misleading/optimistic.  For the most part, I do like the
> >     additional
> >     information.
> > 
> > The situation here is that cmake counts the steps and announces its
> > progress through them as the progress.  Of course the last step is to
> > link about 8GB of binaries...
> > 
> > A progress bar is better than no progress bar, so I still call this an
> > improvement :)
> 
> We have (had, python 3 broke it) a patch to knotty that permits the logs to
> be presented on the screen during a build so for places where you think it
> might have hung you can at least get some status.
> 
> I like the idea of a progress bar.. but we need to weigh the 'it looks like
> it froze' vs 'make sure people know things are still moving'.
> 
> in the GUI world this is the old hour glass/spinning cursor/rotating
> progress bar -- vs a progress meter behavior..

We can certainly do something like that - the progress handler sees all output 
even if it doesn't contain anything interesting to it (e.g. % complete). The 
trouble comes when the process prints out nothing - such as when linking a 
very large binary. I'm not sure how you would introspect into that part of the 
process.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre