sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:48:45 -0700
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:56:30PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Jul 16, Karsten Behrmann [BearPerson AT gmx.net] wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:45:29 -0700 Andrew wrote:
> >
> > > scribe with rsync in my project branch doesnt take very long, on the
> > > order of 30 seconds or less to do an empty update...
>
> An empty rsync update of test grimoire here takes over 2 minutes.
> Interestingly, doing a full tarball download takes only 1 minute.
Well, it doesnt take me two minutes to do an empty update, perhaps its
taking longer for reasons unrelated to rsync in devel/stable sorcery.
> I would
> prefer to use rsync to be nice to the bandwidth, but when it takes 10-15
> minutes to do a 'sorcery update && scribe update', it's a bit silly. Of
> course I also don't want to be rude to bandwidth and do a regular http
> update each time, hence suggesting the md5 check. Applied to either method
> it would take the time down to nearly nothing when nothing has changed.
Downloading the manifest still takes time, and thats time wasted if
basically anything has changed.
> Call that suggesting unnecessary bloat if you must.
Draw the line wherever you want. Try to put yourself in my seat for a
while. You've got the entire sorcery codebase to maintain and a nearly
limitless number of enhancement requests. You can fix all the old
enhancement requests and then by the time you're done, twice as many
have come in. Gets old pretty fast.
So, given that what we have is by no stretch broken, properly functioning
rsync is superior in nearly every case and *no*one* is stepping up
to help code this (or nearly any other feature), that qualifies as
unnecessary bloat. Given a larger workforce all around life would be
different, but we dont exactly have that luxury. So to the back of the
queue it goes.
Given how these things usually pan out. I'll quietly stop responding to this
thread and then everyone will forget within a day or two, maybe a week;
and that will be that.
-Andrew
--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | acedit at armory.com |
|Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Seth Alan Woolley, 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Andrew, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Seth Alan Woolley, 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Andrew, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Karsten Behrmann, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Andrew, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, David Kowis, 07/16/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 07/15/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache, Seth Alan Woolley, 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 07/15/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery and the Broken Cache,
Seth Alan Woolley, 07/15/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.