On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:01:40PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:28:43 +0100
> > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> >> > A big gain in the context of ebuilds and source packages. Well done.
> >> >
> >> Yes, almost a
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:01:40 +0100 Ranjit Singh wrote:
> > If you really think that EAPI as an extension has anything to do
> > with performance
>
> You mentioned performance a few times in that lovely thread when it
> got shot down, I believe in the context of metadata generation:
>
> "Performan
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:28:43 +0100
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
>> > A big gain in the context of ebuilds and source packages. Well done.
>> >
>> Yes, almost as important as not sourcing any ebuilds, so let's all
>> stick an EAPI ext
Arun Raghavan wrote:
> I've not really got an opinion on the topic, per se, but fwiw, this is
> really not a meaningful statistic. *If* parsing strings in the ebuild is
> not a trivial part of the overall ebuild parsing process, then yes, this
> is a significant gain and should be treated as such.
