On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: >> In the spirit of Eli making a bunch of patches for the AUR, I finally decided >> to sit down tonight and figure out why the heck namcap was sucking it up, and >> did a little code cleanup along the way. namcap.py is now a bit cleaner and >> separated into functions, and the real treat is namcap is a hell of a lot >> faster now that I found the bottleneck, which was the depends hook. The >> first 6 >> patches in this series lead up to the 7th, which is where the speed increase >> is >> found. >> >> Let me know what you see, otherwise it would be cool to get this in and a new >> namcap release made, as it has rather dramatic effects with regards to speed. >> >> If you don't like patches, you can get all this from my git tree as well: >> http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/dan/namcap.git/log/?h=working >> >> -Dan >> >> Dan McGee (7): >> Rename 'tags' to 'namcap-tags' >> Only process tags if necessary >> Move extracted variable to the correct scope >> Only do active_modules check once >> Move PKGBUILD processing to a function >> Move real package processing to a function >> Make the depends module not suck >> >> Namcap/depends.py | 104 +++++++++++++++++++------------- >> README | 10 ++-- >> namcap-tags | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> namcap.py | 173 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- >> setup.py | 2 +- >> tags | 65 -------------------- >> tests/tags-check | 4 +- >> 7 files changed, 224 insertions(+), 199 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 namcap-tags >> delete mode 100644 tags > > Pinging the namcap maintainer?
It's listed as Jason, who's account was removed in the last run of deletions. Anyone interested in maintaining namcap? I thought Hugo showed some interest here.
