1 |
Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
2 |
> Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things |
3 |
> slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking |
4 |
> file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is |
5 |
> nowhere near a measurable increase in anything. You're claiming that |
6 |
> checking for a suffix of either ".ebuild-4" or ".ebuild" against a |
7 |
> fixed string is in any way relevant, which is obviously trolling. |
8 |
Read the block once more, he is not stating that adding suffix to the filename |
9 |
is slower. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> > "Having GLEP55 allows us to add GLEP54 without issues!" |
12 |
> > Yeah, uhm, the live-ness of an ebuild is an attribute. How about we |
13 |
> > add it to metadata, as we should for all metadata? Define a key, I |
14 |
> > don't know ... LIVE ? LIVE="true". There. No need to fix the |
15 |
> > filename. And now stop mixing up issues because it is highly |
16 |
> > confusing! |
17 |
> |
18 |
> There is no existing version ordering solution that accurately |
19 |
> represents upstream scm branches. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> > A few words in closing - |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > We can encode all the relevant info in "the first line of the ebuild |
24 |
> > starting with EAPI=" |
25 |
> |
26 |
> No we can't. That's *obviously* completely wrong. |
27 |
We actualy can, you consider it wrong, so we all should do so |
28 |
> |
29 |
> > The overhead of parsing out this value for all ebuilds in the tree |
30 |
> > has been timed at ~2 CPU-seconds by solar. It's negligible. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Those of us who have been measuring this have been discarding CPU time |
33 |
> entirely, since it's utterly irrelevant. That you bring CPU time into |
34 |
> this shows you've been deliberately ignoring everything we've said. |
35 |
Well cpu is not real benchmark, but if it took 2 secs it means the tweaking is |
36 |
not worth efforts. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> We all know you're not stupid enough to believe what you've been |
39 |
> posting or ignorant enough to miss the point so badly. So please stop |
40 |
> pretending -- this issue would have gone through a long time ago were |
41 |
> it not for you and your ilk deliberately pretending to be retarded so |
42 |
> you can raise straw man arguments against it rather than addressing the |
43 |
> issues at hand. You're doing both yourself and everyone else a huge |
44 |
> disfavour by acting dumb and assuming everyone else is going to play |
45 |
> along with that. |
46 |
And this is really just personal offense which you should take out from your |
47 |
mails if you want somebody to take your experience acordingly to your |
48 |
knowledge and not just judge you as 10 year old whining kid. |
49 |
|
50 |
Tomas |