For what it's worth, some of run run fairly large Git installations with
busy cgit instances. We are very concerned about performance :)
Thanks for not forgetting us.
Denis
On 09/29/2012 02:43 PM, 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
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caching appear even more out of date than just minutes.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
--
--
Eclipse Webmaster -- http://www.eclipse.org/
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Webmaster_FAQ
_______________________________________________
cgit mailing list
[email protected]
http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit
