From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M5KfN-0006jm-QK for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 14:15:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54CEBE046F; Sat, 16 May 2009 14:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com (mail-fx0-f219.google.com [209.85.220.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F220E046F for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 14:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so2299963fxm.34 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=lZ++GiTMxuRWp2l52wjgKfhF5tJ7F5SN9bsOGhY71nM=; b=Qr4f1eRzumYHwpVrlmBqWjS8syYwNEF9tlOTTMWii/HsCHJA7p68+grv47nz0uyuzC sp80DvsxtyElskvXdGiZdYq05oxlfBlgk4bYxUF513uvAm/LgxYveXom0rRAXfzJUSuV Po1/qk3uPmpvRaapjWBJITyceyn1OPmKkaXak= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=brp+Ls8qqyhSiUmiCDhHltBVPgTtbCOzcm2rdLNfGQutLx9ZlJKi9v8CDc2aLGLlXe iQBR1ZQ7iJF7Uta2JqrAtnTP87gQshYsxYgFCBsDmm/g58txKTpN360Gi5SJkQOLSSnG lUtUpE546KFPRkDoGJXjbp7qha6PluW2esUCY= Received: by 10.86.49.13 with SMTP id w13mr4893121fgw.31.1242483307430; Sat, 16 May 2009 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d4sm4313878fga.4.2009.05.16.07.15.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 16 May 2009 07:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 15:15:02 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55 Message-ID: <20090516151502.14d49b5f@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090515204905.54aa6a5c@snowmobile> <4A0E8717.5070600@gentoo.org> <200905161059.53706.levertond@googlemail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/UGykP2SrfNu9dWT9BeHoEpG"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: e76efcae-94af-44c8-864a-52a1795a7729 X-Archives-Hash: 179d770342744b1ae881276d048db123 --Sig_/UGykP2SrfNu9dWT9BeHoEpG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > I mean, for the longest time, the main (among many) boosting claim > seemed to be that the speed difference between in-file and > in-filename made the former prohibitive in practice. Perhaps the > benchmarks the council asked for are disproving this. I don't know > but I know I sure see a lot less of that claim, call it a deemphasis > if you will, now, only that the filename method (i.e. glep55) isn't > slower. Uhm. No it hasn't. That is completely and utterly wrong. The main argument has always been that it's the only solution that allows the full variety of changes. The performance thing is a side note on a sub argument that's got nothing to do with the main point. Unfortunately, since GLEP 55 is clearly the only answer when you consider the variety of changes argument, people refuse to talk about it. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/UGykP2SrfNu9dWT9BeHoEpG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoOymgACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGPzwCeLtRGXQSdTe9H2scNbhKKQva+ iEYAn3zOdbKh11skUGgYRYMbZF7JVhz1 =fcZ3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/UGykP2SrfNu9dWT9BeHoEpG--