At 6:08 PM -0700 4/25/01, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dimi has written one or two different patches to xargs. Did
^^^ -- should be 'a', but that's okay. :-)
Note that I also wrote:
If you need an immediate fix, I'll be happy to change Dimi's
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:08:15PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Dima Dorfman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. obrien: that's a very clever and unintrusive way of avoiding
getting two copies of a message; much better than
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:33:24AM -0700, John W. De Boskey wrote:
After some feedback, I have changed the patch slightly. Rename
-d to -t and remove the requirement for the option to have a
value.
I thought people generally agreed the right fix was to add functionality
to `xargs', not
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:33:24AM -0700, John W. De Boskey wrote:
After some feedback, I have changed the patch slightly. Rename
-d to -t and remove the requirement for the option to have a
value.
I thought people generally agreed the right fix was to add functionality
to `xargs',
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:01:18 -0400, John W. De Boskey wrote:
I am dealing with a production process that currently runs
approximately 10 hours. (on 28 866Mhz processors, 2 Netapps).
This process fell into my lap about 2 months ago.
Something to consider is that you're trying to solve a
Hi David, Brian,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you were
able to review the patch also.
I am dealing with a production process that currently runs
approximately 10 hours. (on 28 866Mhz processors, 2 Netapps).
This process fell into my lap about 2 months ago.
After
John W. De Boskey wrote:
Hi David, Brian,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you were
able to review the patch also.
I am dealing with a production process that currently runs
approximately 10 hours. (on 28 866Mhz processors, 2 Netapps).
This process fell into my lap
At 10:01 AM -0400 4/25/01, John W. De Boskey wrote:
Hi David, Brian,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you were
able to review the patch also.
Every time you have asked for people's opinions, they have
said that it seems wrong to made add a specific option to
the 'cp' command
However, a specific hack to cp(1) is what a lot of people don't like.
If FreeBSD contained every little hack every committer had used to
address specific problems, it'd be a mess.
I was told that the hack everyone is referring to is already
implemented in several other operating systems, but
[.]
The xargs weenies have also offered an explicit patch that
could be tried, but that patch is being ignored by you. It
is not a matter of talking ourselves to death, it's a matter
that we're looking for feedback from anyone who wants to
respond to the proposed xargs changes.
If
It is inconceivable that the proposed patch to 'xargs' would
increase your running time. I don't mean the standard '-I'
change, which would certainly destroy performance, but the
proposed patch to 'xargs' which solves your specific problem
in a general way.
I'm still curious as to why
aIn message [EMAIL PROTECTED] John W. De Boskey writes:
:I must say at this point, I tend to agree with him. Basically,
: my review request was skipped over and folks simply went on to
: discuss/argue the merits/demerits of various patchs to xargs. The
: question of whether xargs is
Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:01 AM -0400 4/25/01, John W. De Boskey wrote:
I have reduced the runtime of the process so far by a solid
hour. My change to cp is the lowest level/minimal change fix
which allows me to maintain a O(1) time constraint. I've played
with
Hello,
After some feedback, I have changed the patch slightly. Rename
-d to -t and remove the requirement for the option to have a
value.
-t aquire the target from *argv++ instead of argv[argc--]
The patch can be found at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~jwd/cp-t.patch
Some
14 matches
Mail list logo
