| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Sebastian |
| 2 |
Pipping<webmaster@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Part of the code is integrated at Smolt upstream. |
| 4 |
> The remaining part is planned to be merged upstream, too. |
| 5 |
> Neither upstream nor I want a fork and if upstream resources can handle |
| 6 |
> the extra Gentoo load we will just upgrade the instance running behind |
| 7 |
> http://www.smolts.org/ and submit the Gentoo data to that, too. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If this is combined with some sort of gentoo-infra based backups of |
| 11 |
the data, it would be nice. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I should mention that load is not to be neglected, both looking at |
| 14 |
> processing time of a single submission as well as storage needs. I hope |
| 15 |
> to further improve on the SQL alchemy logic used in my code to make |
| 16 |
> submission handling faster. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You mentioned that upstream needs to check if they can handle Gentoo |
| 20 |
load, was this the bottleneck in that? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Anything else you want to know? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I would say: Is there anything else *you* want to tell us? :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo |
Archives