Garbage in "bzr commit" output

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> 
>>>>> This is fine, but it doesn't fix Moy's problem, because he doesn't want
>>>>> progress bars displayed at all.
>>>
>>> His specific problem is that commit is still throwing garbage, even
>>> though there is no progress bar showing up.
>>>
>>> It isn't a 100% fix, because we still need a way to completely disable
>>> progress bars. But it fixes the short-term.
> 
> There are lots of operations that produce progress bars -- even commit
> on a large tree will do this.  So even in the short term, he's likely to
> get progress bars where he doesn't expect them.  The garbage is just a
> symptom of the fact that tty progress bars are still active.

Well, not just that. Because right now any note/info/etc will call out
to the ui layer, which will call progress.clear()
So I think this is necessary anyway, to prevent 10 note() calls in a row
from falsely clearing the terminal 10 times.

That said, which do you prefer, and ENV variable, or a global command to
disable progress bars?

Oh, and I believe I wrote a patch a long time ago, so that we at least
switch to DotsProgressBar if the output isn't a tty.

> 
>>>>> We could actually just store the start time and the number of updates,
>>>>> couldn't we?
> 
>>> It depends what kind of ETA you want to produce. There are several ways
>>> of computing it, and the current method is probably slightly more accurate.
> ...
>>> It may not be worth the complexity, though.
> 
> I'm okay with it, if there's a reason for it.  I just looked at the code
> and thought "whoah, I must have been really lazy when I wrote that."
> But I wasn't looking closely enough.
> 
> Aaron

Yeah, we've done the work, we might as well leave it for now. In fact, I
was the one who wrote the last_updates version of the ETA function.
Merged by Martin 2005-10-19:
- - improved eta estimation for progress bar
  (patch from John Arbash Meinel)

Anyway, what do you think of the patch? Wait until we can globally
disable it first? If we can decide which way we want to go to disable
it, I'm fine with implementing it.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFErslTJdeBCYSNAAMRAl2gAKC5hCRgMu4lH/uwBW6gcWpXuiRRaACdFfPj
oSQ16NCW62gu5wxNE8UPYAw=
=t3J1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----