Caching would be enough and zsh provide such capabilities. Yesterday
I've dug into docs but they are pretty bad (or I'm just dumb), I've
found no examples of real custom completion via external function only
samples of using internal ones. The only hope is to lurk into built-in
functions though the
Shawn's and Greg's suggestions were excellent ones. In addition to
those, go to the welcome page of your gateway (e.g.
http://127.0.0.1:3456 by default), click on "Recent Uploads and
Downloads", and click on the upload event to see progress and
performance metrics.
Note that the first stage of the
David-Sarah Hopwood writes:
> Are you sure you want path completion for a distributed filesystem? It's
> going to be unusably slow.
Prefetching and caching. Without this, it would probably be unusably slow
even on a local filesystem.
--
http://noncombatant.org/
___
Yes, I do. It's better than nothing, if you don't want to use it just
don't press TAB while typing tahoe path. Or don't set up this
completer at all. I used to this, some servers are really slow even
via ssh, but it's anyway better to slowly complete remote paths than
to remember it and type them b
On 2011-01-25 20:57, Chris Palmer wrote:
> Greg Troxel writes:
>
>>> What about zsh (and possibly other shells) completer for tahoe paths?
>>
>> My quick reaction is that reimplementing the filesystem within other
>> programs is a reaction to the bug that mounting tahoe into the filesystem
>> is n
I didn't mean to say I thought it would be bad for you to write a zsh
completer if that's what you want to do.
I see what you mean about problems when nodes go away and locked up
processes. But I see that as an argumentto fix the timeouts rather
than to avoid mounting.
pgpoqcRouEDd2.pgp
Descr
platform: Linux-Ubuntu_10.04-x86_64-64bit_ELF: green
(running on Rackspace cloud server)
- Think carefully.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Brian Warner wrote:
> On 1/26/11 1:22 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
> >
> > I've just did my usual build and test, i prefer to run tahoe from
> > where i bu
On 1/26/11 1:22 AM, Jimmy Tang wrote:
>
> I've just did my usual build and test, i prefer to run tahoe from
> where i built it from usually, anyway here are the notes...
archlinux:green
OS-X 10.6.6: green
winxp sp3 py27 mingw: green
Excellent! Thanks for the report!
-Brian
I guess we have a misunderstanding here. I don't propose any changes
in tahoe itself. There are problems with mounting I already mentioned
before in this list and trac
(http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1138), don't know
whether they are fixed now because I have very little grid of 7 pee
While I certainly agree with the notion of examining how tahoe and
traditional filesystems differ and designing interfaces to bridge the
gap, the current situation could be significantly improved by
programming effort without having to solve those lofty issues.
I'm sure most people on the list kn
Hi Brian,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:29 AM, Brian Warner wrote:
> I've just pushed the 1.8.2b1 tag for the first beta snapshot, including
> an updated NEWS file but not yet updating the release notes. We're
> having some problems with the automatic tarball builder (#1335), but
> I've just manually
11 matches
Mail list logo
