From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J.H." Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 00/17] gitweb: Simple file based output caching Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:34:37 -0700 Message-ID: <4CC4A66D.6050500@kernel.org> References: <1286402526-13143-1-git-send-email-jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Petr Baudis , admin@repo.or.cz To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 24 23:34:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PA8DN-0005K7-My for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:34:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932989Ab0JXVet (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:34:49 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:41960 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932938Ab0JXVes (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:34:48 -0400 Received: from voot-cruiser.eaglescrag.net ([216.239.45.19]) (authenticated bits=0) by shards.monkeyblade.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9OLYbQ7025460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:34:38 -0700 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at shards.monkeyblade.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100907 Fedora/3.0.7-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.7 In-Reply-To: <1286402526-13143-1-git-send-email-jnareb@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (shards.monkeyblade.net [198.137.202.13]); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > J.H., could you comment on how this series relates to the gitweb code > *currently* running on git.kernel.org wrt. code? If possible, could you > try to compare performance of those two implementations, the one > presented here in this series, and the one used by git.kernel.org. Haven't been ignoring this, but been quite busy with a whole pile of other things (new hardware, kernel issues, patching exploits, generally going insane). I'm *HOPING* I can get around to this next week, I've also been working on a couple of clean-ups in my own code which will likely land 'soon'. - John 'Warthog9' Hawley