fair enough... thanks for the correction =D - Luke On Sep 30, 2012, at 1:51 AM, Ferry Huberts <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 29-09-12 20:43, Luke SanAntonio 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 > > > I'd like to correct you on that. > Try running a server with many big git repositories with a cgit interface on > top, that is heavily used by people. > You'll really want to have caching. > Caching is not something I would like to see dropped or non-functional > >> that with or without the cache, >> every cgit page I've ever come across seems to load in much less time >> than a second... >> >> >> Thanks for considering my patch =D >> - Luke >> >> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hey Luke, >>> >>> Looks great, merged. >>> >>> My one concern, however, which might make me reconsider merging this >>> patch is -- what about the cache? Adding explicit seconds makes any >>> caching appear even more out of date than just minutes. But maybe this >>> isn't a big deal. What do you think? >>> >>> Jason >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cgit mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit >> > > -- > Ferry Huberts _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list [email protected] http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit
