Jean Delvare wrote: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 17:05, Greg KH a �crit�: >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:57:53PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> I still believe we want this shell-based backup-script, no matter how >>> high the performance penalty is. quilt was written in bash after all, >>> which pretty much implies that we do no care about performance; >> Um, no, I would disagree. I deal with a tree that is almost always over >> 300 patches, and push and pop all of them many, many, times a day. >> Making 'quilt pop' 3 times slower would drive me crazy, I already feel >> it's a bit too slow in places...
I agree with Greg. I have several trees that have over 1000 patches. I haven't looked at the details of what you are suggesting, but any change that slows 'quilt pop' down by a factor of 3 is not acceptable (to me). > Feel free to rewrite quilt entirely in C then, I'm sure it would be > much, much faster :) I realize this was said in jest, but I'll respond anyway. I don't know if that's true. The bulk of the actual text processing for a quilt system is handled by 'patch'. That's already in C. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America ============================= _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
