Re: [PATCH 1/2] progress: create progress struct in 'verbose' mode

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] progress: create progress struct in 'verbose' mode
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:49:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqh7t0zy43.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqlficzydj.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:44:08 -0700")

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> writes:
>
>> The main concern I saw here was "we are doing a lot of work that isn't
>> used if the user doesn't want to log traces" - should I approach a
>> reroll of this topic by trying to be smarter about whether to set
>> 'quiet' or 'print' or 'verbose' or whatever it is renamed to, based on
>> whether there is a trace destination? Then for systems which are logging
>> traces the extra work is worth it, but for everyone else it can function
>> as before.
>>
>> I don't love it from a design perspective - it feels a little like
>> progress module is looking a little too closely at trace module
>> internals.
>
> Isn't that primarily due to the decision to tie progress and trace
> too closely?  If so, perhaps that needs to be revisited?

Or the "too close coupling" needs to be accepted as the cost of
doing so (as "progress is often a good cue for an event worth
tracing" was a convenient way to cheat by programmers not to spend
too many braincycles to decide adding trace points---they
automatically got them when they decided to show progress output).

>
> I dunno.