darcs

Patch 1779 increase progress rate from 1/s to 10/s

Title increase progress rate from 1/s to 10/s
Superseder Nosy List bf
Related Issues
Status needs-screening Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2018-12-04.18:15:20 by bf, last changed 2018-12-10.13:42:43 by bf.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
increase-progress-rate-from-1_s-to-10_s.dpatch bf, 2018-12-04.18:15:19 application/x-darcs-patch
patch-preview.txt bf, 2018-12-04.18:15:19 text/x-darcs-patch
unnamed bf, 2018-12-04.18:15:19 text/plain
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg20578 (view) Author: bf Date: 2018-12-04.18:15:19
I won't screen this one immediately. It is certainly debatable whether this
is an improvement. I personally like it but YMMV.

1 patch for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch c9e65dcbef8943720b2328db34b0d889992b1d79
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Tue Nov 13 18:30:54 CET 2018
  * increase progress rate from 1/s to 10/s
Attachments
msg20592 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2018-12-06.06:41:00
In some messed up terminals like Windows, the progress message lines
don't get erased by the next one, so I end up with an actual line of 
output per progress message. I tried this patch and I could just
about live with the spam, but it'd be a bit annoying.

Also could it have an impact on performance? I suspect not, even
though writing to the console is relatively expensive, 10 times
per second shouldn't matter.

Abstracting out the progress constant is a good thing no matter
what actual value it has, of course.
msg20603 (view) Author: bf Date: 2018-12-10.13:42:43
> In some messed up terminals like Windows, the progress message lines
> don't get erased by the next one, so I end up with an actual line of 
> output per progress message. I tried this patch and I could just
> about live with the spam, but it'd be a bit annoying.

I didn't expect that. Unless we can fix this behavior, increasing the
progress message rate looks like a bad idea.

I just googled around a bit and most people seem to think that '\r'
should work even on Windows cmd. I also (dimly) remember that it worked
decades ago when I programmed on MS-DOS.

> Also could it have an impact on performance? 

Not as far as I have tested it.

> I suspect not, even
> though writing to the console is relatively expensive, 10 times
> per second shouldn't matter.

It doesn't.

> Abstracting out the progress constant is a good thing no matter
> what actual value it has, of course.

Can send that as a separate patch.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-12-04 18:15:20bfcreate
2018-12-06 06:41:01ganeshsetmessages: + msg20592
2018-12-10 13:42:43bfsetmessages: + msg20603