Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/4] inexact rename detection eye candy

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

This feels wrong because it's in such a deep library function. At the
very least we probably need some way to turn it off, so callers can pass
along any --quiet or --no-progress indicators.

Yeah.

I made it update progress for each of the rename_src * rename_dst
similarity estimates. We could just as easily count rename_dst items we
look at, but hey, it's eye candy, and obviously bigger numbers are
better.

Uhh. My only big reaction to your patch was literally "why don't you
just do it on the 'dst' items". I really don't think bigger numbers
are better, and if you have _so_ many sources that each dst takes so
long that you'd want updates at that granularity, you're too screwed
anyway.

Don't make the "update progress" be part of the O(n^2) problem.

                  Linus