| 1 |
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:30:44 +0200 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Interactive time is important. If it were adding those extra |
| 4 |
> > seconds to the build, no-one would care. But it's not. It's adding |
| 5 |
> > them to when the user's sitting at the screen waiting for results. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So how about we improve the structure instead of trying to patch up |
| 8 |
> some hotspots? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That's a subject for a different GLEP, and one that's not going to go |
| 11 |
anywhere ever unless someone comes up with a way of doing it |
| 12 |
incrementally. GLEP 55's performance concerns are limited to not making |
| 13 |
things worse. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> For example a readonly repository would guarantee that the cache is |
| 16 |
> always consistent. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Until someone modifies it, yes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > > You mean 0.3% (or less) of the emerge world time? |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > No, he means 50% of pretend time when you're sitting there waiting |
| 23 |
> > to see what's going to happen. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So fix the diseases instead of doctoring around some symptoms ... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I await your GLEP that covers how to migrate the tree layout. That's a |
| 28 |
separate issue, however. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> > It is the best. If we're requiring EAPI before trying to parse PV, |
| 31 |
> > all the EAPIs have to be known to do any ordering. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> ... and why the [censored] would we want that then? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Because without that, we can't make changes to the version format. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> It would help if you would tolerate other opinions (or even the |
| 38 |
> possibility that other people may have opinions that do not agree |
| 39 |
> with you). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
The only issue of opinion is whether or not .ebuild-X and .eapi-X.eb |
| 42 |
look pretty. The rest is purely technical and entirely objective. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives