True, you can do that, but ...
1) It is mainly the calling of external programs that causes stuttering to
other processes
2) I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to have the
fallback position of the worst offenders being controlled anyway.
If you want
On 09/11/2014 11:18, C E Macfarlane wrote:
True, you can do that, but ...
1) It is mainly the calling of external programs that causes stuttering to
other processes
2) I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to have the
fallback position of the worst offenders
On 09/11/14 13:18, Alan Milewczyk wrote:
On 09/11/2014 11:18, C E Macfarlane wrote:
True, you can do that, but ...
1)It is mainly the calling of external programs that causes
stuttering to
other processes
2)I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to
have the
2)I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to have the
fallback position of the worst offenders being controlled anyway.
Write a shell script to run get_iplayer under nice or set an alias in your
shell's config?
___
get_iplayer
On 2014/11/09 13:18, Alan Milewczyk wrote:
On 09/11/2014 11:18, C E Macfarlane wrote:
True, you can do that, but ...
1) It is mainly the calling of external programs that causes stuttering to
other processes
2) I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to have the
On 09/11/14 13:18, Alan Milewczyk wrote:
On 09/11/2014 11:18, C E Macfarlane wrote:
True, you can do that, but ...
1)It is mainly the calling of external programs that causes
stuttering to
other processes
2)I often forget to start get_iplayer with nice, and it's nice to
have the
On 09 November 2014 at 13:18 Alan Milewczyk a...@soulman1949.com
wrote:
If you want that, why wouldn't you just start get_iplayer
with nice anyway?
i.e. nice -19 get_iplayer
You and a few others have mentioned nice in the last few days. I've
never heard of it
How about this in .profile?
alias get_iplayer=nice -19 get_iplayer
I think ...
alias gip='nice -n 19 get_iplayer'
... would be more correct(!), and also more convenient.
But the trouble is, I also sometimes like to run it in the foreground, if
I'm not expecting to be
On 09/11/2014 13:33, Tom wrote:
On 09/11/14 13:18, Alan Milewczyk wrote:
You and a few others have mentioned nice in the last few days. I've
never heard of it before. What is it and what are its benefits?
Sorry about last blank response! nice is a unix/linux command that
sets the priority
On 08/11/2014 21:08, C E Macfarlane wrote:
1) This patches get_iplayer v2.90 to use nice with the parameter -n 19,
Others have beaten me to the punch here: nice does not belong in
get_iplayer. Use a wrapper script or shell alias to apply nice to
get_iplayer itself. Leaving that aside,
This is precisely the sorts of reason I tend not to get involved in
development lists for other people's software. The usual run of events goes
something like ...
Phase 1:You suggest what you see as an enhancement.
Phase 2:Instead of judging the SPIRIT of the enhancement on it
The tests are scattered for a reason. No need to check
binaries if they
aren't going to be used.
So instead you are not sure whether you've initialised the binary variables
and/or tested for the binary existences, and do the work twice or more. For
example:
1) In line 1362-3,
On 09/11/2014 18:05, C E Macfarlane wrote:
been quite sufficient, but you required me to submit sort of patch just so
From your response, it now seems clear you weren't submitting your code
for inclusion in get_iplayer. My apologies for considering it as such
and holding it to that
Sent: 03 October 2014 23:06
To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
Subject: Your message to get_iplayer awaits moderator approval
Your mail to 'get_iplayer' with the subject
Using GIP with nice
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval
On 08/11/14 21:08, C E Macfarlane wrote:
As requested in the original thread, I've created three patch files.
1)This patches get_iplayer v2.90 to use nice with the parameter -n 19,
which by effectively making it run in the background compared with processes
such as serving files, makes
On 09/10/2014 20:01, C E Macfarlane wrote:
Apropos of the following, any chance that the message might be allowed to go
through?
Message body is too big: 419275 bytes with a limit of 40 KB
I think I can safely say there is no chance. Why are you sending a 400K
email? Nobody wants
Sent: 03 October 2014 23:06
To: c.e.macfarl...@macfh.co.uk
Subject: Your message to get_iplayer awaits moderator approval
I think I can safely say there is no chance.
Why are you sending a 400K email?
Nobody wants that on a mailing list
On Fri Oct 10 01:38:24 BST 2014, C E Macfarlane wrote:
It has an altered version of the main perl script attached to it.
Hello Charles :-)
Please upload on an online service like
http://pastebin.com/
(many other similar exist)
and e-mail the list with just the link to the upload...
On 10/10/2014 01:38, C E Macfarlane wrote:
It has an altered version of the main perl script attached to it.
I for one definitely don't want to see that in my inbox. If you're
trying to contribute some changes to get_iplayer, dumping the entire
script isn't the way to go about it. You
Quoting David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org:
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 07:44 +0100, Pete Beardmore wrote:
nope, thwarted again. looks like i won't be sending the patch set.
the
size isn't the issue this time
I've approved your messages manually. For reference, the reason they got
trapped for
Quoting dinkypumpkin dinkypump...@gmail.com:
For anyone interested, the pull request is here:
https://github.com/dinkypumpkin/get_iplayer/pull/10
Click through to each commit to see the actual code changes.
If you're a GitHub member, feel free to leave comments there. Also
feel free to
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 07:44 +0100, Pete Beardmore wrote:
nope, thwarted again. looks like i won't be sending the patch set.
the
size isn't the issue this time
I've approved your messages manually. For reference, the reason they got
trapped for moderation was because they were a reply (had
22 matches
Mail list logo
