Thanks for the pointer Pascal. I personally think the results are better than "not bad". Speed is interesting but our usecases are more interested in correctness IMHO. A quick scan of result show that we either tie or are not far off in the majority of cases. Well done to the competition team.
Jeff On 2010-12-23, at 6:00 PM, Daniel Le Berre wrote: > Dear all, > > The results of the third informal comparison of dependency resolver for > Linux (MISC Live 3) have been disclosed a few days ago. > > The results are here: > http://www.mancoosi.org/misc-live/20101126/results/ > > The results of p2 during that event were not bad, considering that the > other competitors are using plain C/C++ resolvers. > (the lower the score, the better, ties broken using running time) > > The nice feature of that third evaluation is that it contains user > defined optimization functions: > http://www.mancoosi.org/misc-live/20101126/criteria/ > > The version of p2 with custom opt function capability is available as > part of p2cudf: > http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2/CUDFResolver > > Cheers, > > Daniel > -- > Daniel Le Berre mailto:[email protected] > MCF-HDR, CRIL-CNRS UMR 8188, Universite d'Artois > http://www.cril.univ-artois.fr/~leberre > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev _______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
