| 1 |
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:57 +0200, Mark Kubacki wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Zac, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In one word: Great! I love your modifications. Thank you! |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Regarding functionality – there is still some room for more |
| 7 |
> optimizations and more features. For example, if the local copy is no |
| 8 |
> older than x seconds then there's no need to contact any remote |
| 9 |
> server. Expect patches. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> As for the bug. As long as the "If-Modified-Since" header is sent |
| 12 |
> Portage has done its job. Some servers use the header as "ETag" |
| 13 |
> replacement and don't do the more costly greater-than comparison (see |
| 14 |
> also [1]; TIMESTAMP_TOLERANCE should be a configuration option so |
| 15 |
> users can set it to 0 now that the "mtime"-patch has been accepted). |
| 16 |
> And, BaseHandler are chained automatically by "build_opener". |
| 17 |
> Nevertheless, I will look into the whole issue the next days. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Mark, I did similar for the layman-2.0 code which has been running with |
| 21 |
the header info for quite a while now. After it had been running for a |
| 22 |
good amount of time I put in a request to infra for some usage stats. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The If-Modified-Since header does make a big difference for layman. |
| 25 |
Now I just really need to make a good blog post with a few graphs of the |
| 26 |
data. |
| 27 |
You can view the results on this bug if your interested: |
| 28 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398465 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
Archives