On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Luke SanAntonio <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > First of all, good call with the cache, it hadn't even crossed my mind... > Second I think the cache isn't something we need to worry about... > mostly because > cgit is very lightweight, and I think for now, we don't have to be too > worried about > performance, correct me if I'm wrong though... Also it seems to me > that with or without the cache, > every cgit page I've ever come across seems to load in much less time > than a second...
Hey, sorry, just to be clear -- my concern isn't about performance, but about this: If you set the cgit cache to 1 minute, and the granularity of timestamps is only 1 minute, then for the most part, the pages, though cached, will see up to date. However if you set the cgit cache to 1 minute, and the granularity of the timestamps is 1 second, then for the most part, the pages will seem out of date. But this is just how caching is, so I'm not sure it's such a big concern. Just throwing it out there, in case anyone had some elegant solution or attitude about it. _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list [email protected] http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit
