Den 2015-12-07 kl. 04:48, skrev Mike Frysinger:
> On 02 Dec 2015 20:16, Pierre Tardy wrote:
>>> i don't think getting rid out of the fs makes sense, but having memcache
>>> be available dynamically as an additional layer sounds fine..
>>
>> It does make a lot of sense for me as I have a high
> The option to switch the to_cache/from_cache can be made available
> separately, like it was in your PR. But it can use another config ?
> Probably needs some updating and refactoring, and it would be nice
> to try and keep the code duplication between them to a minimum...
>
> i.e. between the
On 01 Dec 2015 21:59, Anders Björklund wrote:
> Pierre Tardy made a PR (https://github.com/jrosdahl/ccache/pull/30)
> to replace the filesystem ("fs") cache with memcached altogether.
>
> We have gone with a different approach, to use memcached only as a
> secondary cache - while preserving the
>
>
> i don't think getting rid out of the fs makes sense, but having memcache
> be available dynamically as an additional layer sounds fine.
>
It does make a lot of sense for me as I have a high performance network,
which is faster than local harddrive. So I would insist on keeping an
option for
Pierre Tardy wrote:
>
> i don't think getting rid out of the fs makes sense, but having memcache
> be available dynamically as an additional layer sounds fine.
>
> It does make a lot of sense for me as I have a high performance network,
> which is faster than local harddrive. So I would
