On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 AM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:33:53 +0200 > John Marino wrote: > >> On 5/27/2013 22:09, RW wrote: >> > On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:38:11 +0200 >> > John Marino wrote: >> > >> > >> > No, that's something you just made up. It is however vague and >> > anecdotal. We have only one data point that we know is from this >> > year and not self-inflicted, even if the others are, for all we >> > know it could still be fast most of the time. >> > >> > Some monitoring would be useful. >> > >> >> However you slice it, a distinfo file with 1000+ entries is >> completely absurd. 95% of the blame goes to Vim developers. >> However, it is within the realm of feasibility to pre-package patches >> in batches of 100 (or conversely 1 tarball of patches rolled for >> every time patch count hits multiple of 100). > > In other words downloading every patch twice. >
As a side note: Patches 100-199 (as an example) are 600KB, while a tar.xz of them is 115KB. Data-wise, it's closer to "downloading each patch 1.2 times". -- Daniel "let's poke the fresh paint on this bikeshed" Nebdal _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
