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 [
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
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
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 approp
> 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
[.]
> 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.
>
> 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,
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' comman
"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
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 study
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 solv
> 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
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 `
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 comments:
14 matches
Mail list logo
