On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:21:42 -0600 Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On 12/20/05, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > just one thing - with efm it shouldnt be forking 1 process per image all
> > at
> > once. it will only be keeping 1 forked child at
On 12/20/05, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
just one thing - with efm it shouldnt be forking 1 process per image all at
once. it will only be keeping 1 forked child at a time - running alonggenerating for images without thumbs if they need one. the parent just gets thech
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:39:43 -0600 Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> Hello all, sorry for the long message, but I want to get everyone updated
> with the necessary background before I send my proposed change.
>
> We've long had a trend of duplicate code in CVS, and right now this is
Hello all, sorry for the long message, but I want to get everyone updated with the necessary background before I send my proposed change.We've long had a trend of duplicate code in CVS, and right now this is definitely the case. There is one area where I think there is enough concensus that we coul
