| 1 |
On 11/26/2011 08:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 26 November 2011 07:50:27 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 26-11-2011 16:56:41 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> [...] Besides, sorting even 30,000 |
| 6 |
>>>> entries (if you're merging every ebuild in portage) should not take |
| 7 |
>>>> more than a few secs. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> A linux kernel has around that much of files, and I really wonder if |
| 10 |
>>> it's worth waiting a couple of seconds (probably more on sparc and arm |
| 11 |
>>> systems) just because then the files are in sorted order. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I'm not sure the two are really comparable. However, looking at a |
| 14 |
>> simple string sort on 30,000 strings, I don't see it taking a |
| 15 |
>> significant amount of time at all: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> sure, it's probably not significantly higher, but i also can't see any point in |
| 18 |
> sorting the entries. we've been doing fine so far in the 10+ years of it being |
| 19 |
> unsorted. so unless Arfrever has a compelling reason, time to revert. |
| 20 |
> -mike |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Okay, reverted: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=7c5b170d47ab054bc3f8a7778dd3f8139c1239c6 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives