On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Gabor Bernat writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gábor Bernát
>> ...
>>> Agreed, :) did not abandoned this, just got caught up with many stuff.
>>> Thanks for the help,
>>
>> So do
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Gábor Bernát
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Eric Sunshine writes:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Junio C Hamano
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Eric Sunshine write
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Gábor Bernát writes:
>>> +echo $(date +%s) | grep -q '^[0-9]+$'; 2>/dev/null && show_seconds=t
>>
>> That is very strange construct. I think you meant to say something
>> like
>>
>>
I would argue against the every n commit check, or at least making it
configurable, as in my case the speed is something between 0.01 and
1.5 seconds per commit. Checking it every n commit would make it I
feel quite slow to adapt. But it's debatable.
On 8/30/15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunsh
>From 620e69d10a1bfcfcace347cbb95991d75fd23a1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gabor Bernat
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:46:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add to the git filter-branch a --progress-eta flag which when
enabled will print with the progress also the number of seconds passed since
started
AM, Eric Sunshine
> wrote:
>> (Please don't top-post on this list.)
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
>>> Reading after it, I think the most close we can get with this is, awk
>>> 'BEGIN { print strftime("%c"
gt; On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
>> Amended, the latest version is at https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/
>> :)
>> Does this looks okay, should I create a patch from this?
>
> Excerpt:
>
> now=$(date +%s)
> elapsed=$(($now -
Amended, the latest version is at https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/ :)
Bernát GÁBOR
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Gabor Bernat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here's what I ended up using, and seemed to work well:
> https://github.com/gabor
Hello,
Here's what I ended up using, and seemed to work well:
https://github.com/gaborbernat/git/commit/766841bc1b726a5d6e7e051938b82975368695a0
Does this looks okay, should I create a patch from this?
Thanks,
Bernát GÁBOR
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 20
I would lean for an extra on-demand flag for this, and a per commit
measurement, initial noise is okay for the first iteration I think.
Secondly note that on the output other messages could also be present
(other than the rewrite), as the command running may have its own
output. I will try to creat
Hello,
So it would be great if the filter-branch beside the Rewrite
f8f0b351ae35ff7ac4bd58078cbba1aa34243779 (523/22625), would also
append a basic ETA signaling the end of the operation.
It could be as simple as the the average number of milliseconds per
step up to this point multiplied with the
11 matches
Mail list logo
