commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify #315

garimasi514 · 2019-08-19T17:50:03Z

Hey Git contributors!

My name is Garima Singh and I work at Microsoft. I recently started working
closely with the Microsoft team contributing to the git client ecosystem.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to work with this community. I am new
to the world of git client development but I did work on the Git service offering
of Azure Developer Services for a few years. I am sure I will get to learn a lot
from all of you.

Dr. Derrick Stolee helped me pick out my first task (Thanks Stolee!) He mentioned
an issue in the commit-graph builtin where git did not support opting in and out
of the progress output. This was bloating up the stderr logs in VFS for Git.
The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229 ("commit-graph write: add
progress output", 2018-09-17) but the ability to opt-out was overlooked. This
patch adds the --no-progress option so that callers can control the amount of
logging they receive.

Looking forward to your review.
Cheers!
Garima Singh

CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

gitgitgadget · 2019-08-19T17:50:41Z

Welcome to GitGitGadget

Hi @garimasi514, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests.

Please make sure that this Pull Request has a good description, as it will be used as cover letter.

Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:

the lines should not exceed 76 columns,
the first line should be like a header and typically start with a prefix like "tests:" or "commit:", and
the commit messages' body should be describing the "why?" of the change.
Finally, the commit messages should end in a Signed-off-by: line matching the commits' author.

It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code.

Contributing the patches

Before you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a PR comment of the form /allow <username>.

Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment /submit.

After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions.

If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox ("raw") file corresponding to the mail you want to reply to from the Git mailing list. If you use GMail, you can upload that raw mbox file via:

curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" --url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txt

derrickstolee · 2019-08-19T19:05:19Z

/allow

gitgitgadget · 2019-08-19T19:06:06Z

User garimasi514 is now allowed to use GitGitGadget.

wilbaker · 2019-08-19T22:12:00Z

@garimasi514 it looks like there is a typo in your commit message:

The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229
("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2019-09-17)

The date of that commit should be 2018

derrickstolee · 2019-08-20T11:12:42Z

@garimasi514 it looks like there is a typo in your commit message:
The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229
("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2019-09-17)
The date of that commit should be 2018

Good catch, William! That typo is my fault, as I went to look for the format to write commit pointers, then sent it to Garima.

commit-graph.c

wilbaker

Just one more comment, it also looks like the date in the commit message still needs to be updated

builtin/commit-graph.c

garimasi514 · 2019-08-20T18:37:06Z

/submit

gitgitgadget · 2019-08-20T18:38:07Z

Submitted as [email protected]

gitgitgadget · 2019-08-20T18:46:02Z

On the Git mailing list, Derrick Stolee wrote (reply to this):

On 8/20/2019 2:37 PM, Garima Singh via GitGitGadget wrote:
> Hey Git contributors! 
> 
> My name is Garima Singh and I work at Microsoft. I recently started working
> closely with the Microsoft team contributing to the git client ecosystem. I
> am very glad to have the opportunity to work with this community. I am new
> to the world of git client development but I did work on the Git service
> offering of Azure Developer Services for a few years. I am sure I will get
> to learn a lot from all of you. 

I just wanted to chime in and introduce Garima a bit myself. Garima and  I
were both on the Git Server team for Azure Repos and left that team around
the same time. She went and did things in Azure Pipelines before leaving to
pursue more education and returning to our current team working on the Git
ecosystem. Garima will be focused mostly on core Git, so get used to seeing
her on the list!

She's starting with a couple smaller series to get her feet wet, but then
is working on some deep dives into performance features. Look forward to
those!

> CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

GitGitGadget is picky about the casing of "Cc:" so I have CC'd these people.

Thanks,
-Stolee

Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt

t/t5318-commit-graph.sh

Add --[no-]progress to git commit-graph write and verify. The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229 ("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2018-09-17) but the ability to opt-out was overlooked. Signed-off-by: Garima Singh <[email protected]>

wilbaker

Latest commit looks good to me

garimasi514 · 2019-08-26T16:29:15Z

/submit

gitgitgadget · 2019-08-26T16:30:09Z

Submitted as [email protected]

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-10T14:03:03Z

On the Git mailing list, Garima Singh wrote (reply to this):

Ping :) Any more comments or concerns about this?

On 8/26/2019 12:29 PM, Garima Singh via GitGitGadget wrote:
> Hey Git contributors!
> 
> My name is Garima Singh and I work at Microsoft. I recently started working
> closely with the Microsoft team contributing to the git client ecosystem. I
> am very glad to have the opportunity to work with this community. I am new
> to the world of git client development but I did work on the Git service
> offering of Azure Developer Services for a few years. I am sure I will get
> to learn a lot from all of you.
> 
> Dr. Derrick Stolee helped me pick out my first task (Thanks Stolee!) He
> mentioned an issue in the commit-graph builtin where git did not support
> opting in and out of the progress output. This was bloating up the stderr
> logs in VFS for Git. The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229222
> ("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2018-09-17) but the ability to
> opt-out was overlooked. This patch adds the --no-progress option so that
> callers can control the amount of logging they receive.
> 
> Looking forward to your review. Cheers! Garima Singh
> 
> CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> 
> Garima Singh (1):
>    commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify.
> 
>   Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt |  7 ++++--
>   builtin/commit-graph.c             | 21 ++++++++++++-----
>   commit-graph.c                     |  6 +++--
>   t/t5318-commit-graph.sh            | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh      |  2 +-
>   5 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> base-commit: 745f6812895b31c02b29bdfe4ae8e5498f776c26
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-315%2Fgarimasi514%2FcoreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle-v2
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-315/garimasi514/coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle-v2
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/315
> 
> Range-diff vs v1:
> 
>   1:  da89f7dadb ! 1:  47cc99bd15 commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify.
>       @@ -17,16 +17,19 @@
>         [verse]
>         'git commit-graph read' [--object-dir <dir>]
>        -'git commit-graph verify' [--object-dir <dir>] [--shallow]
>       +-'git commit-graph write' <options> [--object-dir <dir>]
>        +'git commit-graph verify' [--object-dir <dir>] [--shallow] [--[no-]progress]
>       - 'git commit-graph write' <options> [--object-dir <dir>]
>       ++'git commit-graph write' <options> [--object-dir <dir>] [--[no-]progress]
>         
>         
>       + DESCRIPTION
>        @@
>         	commit-graph file is expected to be in the `<dir>/info` directory and
>         	the packfiles are expected to be in `<dir>/pack`.
>         
>        +--[no-]progress::
>       -+	Toggle whether to show progress or not.
>       ++	Turn progress on/off explicitly. If neither is specified, progress is
>       ++	shown if standard error is connected to a terminal.
>         
>         COMMANDS
>         --------
>       @@ -35,11 +38,6 @@
>         --- a/builtin/commit-graph.c
>         +++ b/builtin/commit-graph.c
>        @@
>       - #include "repository.h"
>       - #include "commit-graph.h"
>       - #include "object-store.h"
>       -+#include "unistd.h"
>       -
>         static char const * const builtin_commit_graph_usage[] = {
>         	N_("git commit-graph [--object-dir <objdir>]"),
>         	N_("git commit-graph read [--object-dir <objdir>]"),
>       @@ -74,15 +72,6 @@
>         
>         static int graph_verify(int argc, const char **argv)
>        @@
>       - 	int fd;
>       - 	struct stat st;
>       - 	int flags = 0;
>       --
>       -+	int defaultProgressState = isatty(2);
>       -+	
>       - 	static struct option builtin_commit_graph_verify_options[] = {
>       - 		OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>       - 			   N_("dir"),
>         			   N_("The object directory to store the graph")),
>         		OPT_BOOL(0, "shallow", &opts.shallow,
>         			 N_("if the commit-graph is split, only verify the tip file")),
>       @@ -90,8 +79,7 @@
>         		OPT_END(),
>         	};
>         
>       -+	opts.progress = defaultProgressState;
>       -+	
>       ++	opts.progress = isatty(2);
>         	argc = parse_options(argc, argv, NULL,
>         			     builtin_commit_graph_verify_options,
>         			     builtin_commit_graph_verify_usage, 0);
>       @@ -101,7 +89,7 @@
>         		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_VERIFY_SHALLOW;
>        -
>        +	if (opts.progress)
>       -+		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_PROGRESS;
>       ++		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS;
>        +	
>         	graph_name = get_commit_graph_filename(opts.obj_dir);
>         	open_ok = open_commit_graph(graph_name, &fd, &st);
>       @@ -110,14 +98,11 @@
>         	struct string_list *commit_hex = NULL;
>         	struct string_list lines;
>         	int result = 0;
>       --	unsigned int flags = COMMIT_GRAPH_PROGRESS;
>       --
>       -+	unsigned int flags = 0;
>       -+	int defaultProgressState = isatty(2);
>       -+	
>       +-	enum commit_graph_write_flags flags = COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS;
>       ++	enum commit_graph_write_flags flags = 0;
>       +
>         	static struct option builtin_commit_graph_write_options[] = {
>         		OPT_STRING(0, "object-dir", &opts.obj_dir,
>       - 			N_("dir"),
>        @@
>         			N_("start walk at commits listed by stdin")),
>         		OPT_BOOL(0, "append", &opts.append,
>       @@ -130,16 +115,16 @@
>         		OPT_END(),
>         	};
>         
>       -+	opts.progress = defaultProgressState;
>       ++	opts.progress = isatty(2);
>         	split_opts.size_multiple = 2;
>         	split_opts.max_commits = 0;
>         	split_opts.expire_time = 0;
>        @@
>       - 		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_APPEND;
>       + 		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_APPEND;
>         	if (opts.split)
>       - 		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_SPLIT;
>       + 		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_SPLIT;
>        +	if (opts.progress)
>       -+		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_PROGRESS;
>       ++		flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS;
>         
>         	read_replace_refs = 0;
>         
>       @@ -153,20 +138,13 @@
>         
>        -	progress = start_progress(_("Verifying commits in commit graph"),
>        -				  g->num_commits);
>       -+	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_PROGRESS)
>       ++	if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS)
>        +		progress = start_progress(_("Verifying commits in commit graph"),
>        +					g->num_commits);
>        +
>         	for (i = 0; i < g->num_commits; i++) {
>         		struct commit *graph_commit, *odb_commit;
>         		struct commit_list *graph_parents, *odb_parents;
>       - 		uint32_t max_generation = 0;
>       -
>       - 		display_progress(progress, i + 1);
>       -+
>       - 		hashcpy(cur_oid.hash, g->chunk_oid_lookup + g->hash_len * i);
>       -
>       - 		graph_commit = lookup_commit(r, &cur_oid);
>        
>         diff --git a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
>         --- a/t/t5318-commit-graph.sh
>       @@ -175,7 +153,7 @@
>         	git repack
>         '
>         
>       -+test_expect_success 'commit-graph write progress off by default for stderr' '
>       ++test_expect_success 'commit-graph write progress off for redirected stderr' '
>        +	cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/full" &&
>        +	git commit-graph write 2>err &&
>        +	test_line_count = 0 err
>       @@ -193,7 +171,7 @@
>        +	test_line_count = 0 err
>        +'
>        +
>       -+test_expect_success 'commit-graph verify progress off by default for stderr' '
>       ++test_expect_success 'commit-graph verify progress off for redirected stderr' '
>        +	cd "$TRASH_DIRECTORY/full" &&
>        +	git commit-graph verify 2>err &&
>        +	test_line_count = 0 err
>

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-12T20:44:01Z

Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt

@@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ SYNOPSIS
 --------


On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

"Garima Singh via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]> writes: > diff --git a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt > index eb5e7865f0..ca0b1a683f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt > @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ SYNOPSIS > -------- > [verse] > 'git commit-graph read' [--object-dir <dir>] > -'git commit-graph verify' [--object-dir <dir>] [--shallow] > -'git commit-graph write' <options> [--object-dir <dir>] > +'git commit-graph verify' [--object-dir <dir>] [--shallow] [--[no-]progress] > +'git commit-graph write' <options> [--object-dir <dir>] [--[no-]progress] This is not a problem with this patch, but it is disturbing to see <options> and other concrete "--option" listed explicitly. It could be that "--object-dir <dir>" is so important an option that deserves to be singled out while other random options can be left to individual option's description, but in that case, would "--progress" be equally important (if anything, as an option that is purely about appearance, I would expect it to be with a lot lower importance)? I guess with a preparatory clean-up patch to deal with the <options> part, the result of applying this patch would not look so bad. Perhaps renaming <options> to <write-specific-options> and moving it to the end of the line might be sufficient. I dunno. At least we'd need to make sure that it is clear to readers what options are allowed where we wrote <options> above. > @@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ OPTIONS > commit-graph file is expected to be in the `<dir>/info` directory and > the packfiles are expected to be in `<dir>/pack`. > > +--[no-]progress:: > + Turn progress on/off explicitly. If neither is specified, progress is Trailing whitespace. > + shown if standard error is connected to a terminal. > ... > + if (opts.progress) > + flags |= COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS; > + Trailing whitespace. > diff --git a/commit-graph.c b/commit-graph.c > index f2888c203b..2802f2ade6 100644 > --- a/commit-graph.c > +++ b/commit-graph.c > @@ -1992,8 +1992,10 @@ int verify_commit_graph(struct repository *r, struct commit_graph *g, int flags) > if (verify_commit_graph_error & ~VERIFY_COMMIT_GRAPH_ERROR_HASH) > return verify_commit_graph_error; > > - progress = start_progress(_("Verifying commits in commit graph"), > - g->num_commits); > + if (flags & COMMIT_GRAPH_WRITE_PROGRESS) > + progress = start_progress(_("Verifying commits in commit graph"), > + g->num_commits); > + This is correct, but it feels funny that it is sufficient to castrate start_progress() and we do not have to muck with existing calls to show and stop progress output. We rely on progress being NULL for that to work, and existing code initializes the variable to NULL, so we are OK.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-12T22:00:33Z

This branch is now known as gs/commit-graph-progress.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-12T22:00:34Z

This patch series was integrated into pu via git@21d19b2.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-16T21:51:25Z

This patch series was integrated into pu via git@888472f.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-16T22:40:19Z

Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt

@@ -10,8 +10,8 @@ SYNOPSIS
 --------


On the Git mailing list, SZEDER Gábor wrote (reply to this):

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:29:58AM -0700, Garima Singh via GitGitGadget wrote: > From: Garima Singh <[email protected]> > > Add --[no-]progress to git commit-graph write and verify. > The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229 > ("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2018-09-17) but > the ability to opt-out was overlooked. > diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > index 99f4ef4c19..4fc3fda9d6 100755 > --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ test_expect_success 'add octopus merge' ' > git merge commits/3 commits/4 && > git branch merge/octopus && > git commit-graph write --reachable --split && > - git commit-graph verify 2>err && > + git commit-graph verify --progress 2>err && Why is it necessary to use '--progress' here? It should not be necessary, because the commit message doesn't mention that it changed the default behavior of 'git commit-graph verify'... > test_line_count = 3 err && Having said that, this test should not check the number of progress lines in the first place; see the recent discussion: https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ > test_i18ngrep ! warning err && > test_line_count = 3 $graphdir/commit-graph-chain > -- > gitgitgadget

On the Git mailing list, Derrick Stolee wrote (reply to this):

On 9/16/2019 6:36 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:29:58AM -0700, Garima Singh via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Garima Singh <[email protected]> >> >> Add --[no-]progress to git commit-graph write and verify. >> The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229 >> ("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2018-09-17) but >> the ability to opt-out was overlooked. > >> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> index 99f4ef4c19..4fc3fda9d6 100755 >> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh >> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ test_expect_success 'add octopus merge' ' >> git merge commits/3 commits/4 && >> git branch merge/octopus && >> git commit-graph write --reachable --split && >> - git commit-graph verify 2>err && >> + git commit-graph verify --progress 2>err && > > Why is it necessary to use '--progress' here? It should not be > necessary, because the commit message doesn't mention that it changed > the default behavior of 'git commit-graph verify'... It does change the default when stderr is not a terminal window. If we were not redirecting to a file, this change would not be necessary. >> test_line_count = 3 err && > > Having said that, this test should not check the number of progress > lines in the first place; see the recent discussion: > > https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ True, this is an old issue. I think it never got corrected because your reply sounded like the issue doesn't exist in the normal test suite, only in a private branch where you changed the behavior of GIT_TEST_GETTEXT_POISON. If we still think that should be fixed, it should not be a part of this series, but should be a separate one that focuses on just those changes. Thanks, -Stolee

On the Git mailing list, SZEDER Gábor wrote (reply to this):

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 06:47:38AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > On 9/16/2019 6:36 PM, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 09:29:58AM -0700, Garima Singh via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> From: Garima Singh <[email protected]> > >> > >> Add --[no-]progress to git commit-graph write and verify. > >> The progress feature was introduced in 7b0f229 > >> ("commit-graph write: add progress output", 2018-09-17) but > >> the ability to opt-out was overlooked. > > > >> diff --git a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > >> index 99f4ef4c19..4fc3fda9d6 100755 > >> --- a/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > >> +++ b/t/t5324-split-commit-graph.sh > >> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ test_expect_success 'add octopus merge' ' > >> git merge commits/3 commits/4 && > >> git branch merge/octopus && > >> git commit-graph write --reachable --split && > >> - git commit-graph verify 2>err && > >> + git commit-graph verify --progress 2>err && > > > > Why is it necessary to use '--progress' here? It should not be > > necessary, because the commit message doesn't mention that it changed > > the default behavior of 'git commit-graph verify'... > > It does change the default when stderr is not a terminal window. If we > were not redirecting to a file, this change would not be necessary. OK, yesterday I overlooked that the patch added this line: + opts.progress = isatty(2); So, the first question is whether that behavior change is desired; I don't really have an opinion. But if it is desired, then it should be changed in a separate patch, explaining why it is desired, I would think. > >> test_line_count = 3 err && > > > > Having said that, this test should not check the number of progress > > lines in the first place; see the recent discussion: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]/ > > True, this is an old issue. I think it never got corrected because > your reply sounded like the issue doesn't exist in the normal test > suite, Well, the way I see it the root issue is that the test checks things that it shouldn't. > only in a private branch where you changed the behavior of > GIT_TEST_GETTEXT_POISON. > > If we still think that should be fixed, it should not be a part of > this series, but should be a separate one that focuses on just > those changes. Yeah, it should rather go on top of 'ds/commit-graph-octopus-fix'.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-17T22:23:42Z

This patch series was integrated into pu via git@b636c0e.

gitgitgadget · 2019-09-18T19:51:31Z

This patch series was integrated into pu via git@0124200.

gitgitgadget · 2019-12-02T16:15:17Z

This patch series was integrated into pu via git@caf150c.

gitgitgadget · 2019-12-02T16:15:19Z

This patch series was integrated into next via git@caf150c.

gitgitgadget · 2019-12-02T16:15:21Z

This patch series was integrated into master via git@caf150c.

gitgitgadget · 2019-12-02T16:15:24Z

Closed via caf150c.

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch from 6b6767b to d5b5e90 Compare August 19, 2019 18:59

garimasi514 changed the title ~~Add progress toggle to the commit graph write and verify commands~~ commit-graph: add --no-progress to write and verify Aug 19, 2019

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch from d5b5e90 to ca4d6c1 Compare August 19, 2019 19:22

derrickstolee reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

commit-graph.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch 5 times, most recently from 01bc0fe to 9bdc6bc Compare August 20, 2019 17:17

derrickstolee approved these changes Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

garimasi514 changed the title ~~commit-graph: add --no-progress to write and verify~~ commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify Aug 20, 2019

wilbaker reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

builtin/commit-graph.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch from 9bdc6bc to 16ba04e Compare August 20, 2019 17:45

wilbaker reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

builtin/commit-graph.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

wilbaker reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

builtin/commit-graph.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch from 16ba04e to da89f7d Compare August 20, 2019 18:02

wilbaker approved these changes Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

gitgitgadget bot reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt Show resolved Hide resolved

gitgitgadget bot reviewed Aug 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

Documentation/git-commit-graph.txt Show resolved Hide resolved

weekly-digest bot mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2019

Weekly Digest (18 August, 2019 - 25 August, 2019) #321

Closed

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch 2 times, most recently from e100ef3 to 0722c70 Compare August 26, 2019 14:28

derrickstolee reviewed Aug 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

t/t5318-commit-graph.sh Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch 2 times, most recently from a4afdea to 167cbb3 Compare August 26, 2019 14:55

garimasi514 force-pushed the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch from 167cbb3 to 47cc99b Compare August 26, 2019 15:13

wilbaker approved these changes Aug 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

wilbaker mentioned this pull request Aug 26, 2019

multi-pack-index: add --no-progress to verify microsoft/git#186

Merged

weekly-digest bot mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2019

Weekly Digest (25 August, 2019 - 1 September, 2019) #326

Closed

gitgitgadget bot reviewed Sep 12, 2019

View reviewed changes

gitgitgadget bot added the pu label Sep 12, 2019

weekly-digest bot mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2019

Weekly Digest (8 September, 2019 - 15 September, 2019) #338

Closed

gitgitgadget bot reviewed Sep 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

weekly-digest bot mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2019

Weekly Digest (15 September, 2019 - 22 September, 2019) #350

Closed

gitgitgadget bot added master next labels Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot closed this Dec 2, 2019

garimasi514 deleted the coreGit-commit-graph-progress-toggle branch December 12, 2019 01:18

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify #315

commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify #315

garimasi514 commented Aug 19, 2019 •

edited

Loading

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 19, 2019

derrickstolee commented Aug 19, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 19, 2019

wilbaker commented Aug 19, 2019

derrickstolee commented Aug 20, 2019

wilbaker left a comment

garimasi514 commented Aug 20, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 20, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 20, 2019

wilbaker left a comment

garimasi514 commented Aug 26, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 26, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 10, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 12, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 12, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 12, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 16, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 16, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 17, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 17, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 17, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 18, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify #315

commit-graph: add --[no-]progress to write and verify #315

Conversation

garimasi514 commented Aug 19, 2019 • edited Loading

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 19, 2019

Welcome to GitGitGadget

Contributing the patches

derrickstolee commented Aug 19, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 19, 2019

wilbaker commented Aug 19, 2019

derrickstolee commented Aug 20, 2019

wilbaker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

garimasi514 commented Aug 20, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 20, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 20, 2019

wilbaker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

garimasi514 commented Aug 26, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Aug 26, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 10, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 12, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 12, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 16, 2019

gitgitgadget bot Sep 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gitgitgadget bot Sep 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gitgitgadget bot Sep 17, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 17, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Sep 18, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

gitgitgadget bot commented Dec 2, 2019

garimasi514 commented Aug 19, 2019 •

edited

Loading