Lars Hjemli hje...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Eric Wong normalper...@yhbt.net wrote:
This. I prefer we keep passing around the ctx variable to keep the code
more flexible for future reuse. Of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Eric Wong normalper...@yhbt.net wrote:
Lars Hjemli hje...@gmail.com wrote:
Supporting something like FCGI in cgit will require a fork(2) for each
request, before invoking libgit.a functions, since these functions are
not generally reentrant (they tend to use
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Eric Wong normalper...@yhbt.net wrote:
Lars Hjemli hje...@gmail.com wrote:
Supporting something like FCGI in cgit will require a fork(2) for each
request, before invoking libgit.a
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:08 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
I had a look at porting to libgit2 about a year ago and it mostly isn't
too bad. IIRC the only problematic area is the graph output which we
currently get from libgit.a but would have to do ourselves if we switch
to
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:38:02PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:08 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
I had a look at porting to libgit2 about a year ago and it mostly isn't
too bad. IIRC the only problematic area is the graph output which we
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:26:08PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
The first step in this direction may actually be useful even if we stick
with embedding libgit.a.
So what do you think ought to be done with the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:36:34PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:34 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
I'm not sure it makes much difference either way. Even if we use
libgit2, providing we're not processing more than one request at once we
can still
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk wrote:
At once (as in in parallel), or without needing to fork for every
request? I think that many requests serially in the same process is a
much more likely scenario (that's what FastCGI does); in that case all
we need to do
Jason A. Donenfeld ja...@zx2c4.com wrote:
In theory, passing around the variable, and not relying on a global,
is better. It allows us at somepoint to have multiple contexts, for,
say, implementing FastCGI or an event loop single-process multi
response model.
This. I prefer we keep passing
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Eric Wong normalper...@yhbt.net wrote:
This. I prefer we keep passing around the ctx variable to keep the code
more flexible for future reuse. Of course, IIRC git itself has this
limitation, too...
Can anyone confirm or deny this? Is it a pointless endeavor
10 matches
Mail list logo
