Bonjour Michaël,
Getting to know the total size and the current size are the two important factors that matter when it comes to do progress reporting in my opinion. I have read the patch, and I am not really convinced by the need to show the progress report based on an interval of 250ms as we talk about an operation which could take dozens of minutes.
I do not think that it matters. I like to see things moving, and the performance impact is null.
So I have simplified the patch to only show a progress report every second. This also removes the include for the time-related APIs from portability/.
I do not think that it is a good idea, because Michael is thinking of adding some throttling capability, which would be a very good thing, but which will need something precise, so better use the precise stuff from the start. Also, the per second stuff induces rounding effects at the beginning.
A second thing is that I don't think that the speed is much useful.
Hmmm. I like this information because I this is where I have expectations, whereas I'm not sure whether 1234 seconds for 12.3 GB is good or bad, but I know that 10 MB/s on my SSD is not very good.
I would expect the speed to be steady, still there is a risk to show incorrect information if the speed of the operation is spiky or irregular leading to an incorrect estimation of the remaining time.
Hmmm. That is life, I'd say I'm used to it.
In short, I would like to commit the first patch as attached, which is much more simple than what has been sent previously, still it provides the progress information which is useful.
I would prefer that you would keep the patch with the initial precision & features for the reasons outlined above, but you are the committer and I'm only a reviewer.
-- Fabien.
