From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-performance-return-14368-arch-gentoo-performance=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 3814 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2004 12:43:22 +0000
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197)
  by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Oct 2004 12:43:22 +0000
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org)
	by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41)
	id 1CGzWL-0005HG-N6
	for arch-gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:43:21 +0000
Received: (qmail 14405 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2004 12:43:18 +0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-performance-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-performance@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-performance-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-performance-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-performance-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-performance.gentoo.org>
Reply-To: gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-performance@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 31616 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2004 12:43:18 +0000
Message-ID: <921ad39e04101105435bcc0e0b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:43:17 +0000
From: Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Roman Gaufman <hackeron@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-performance@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <416A7E21.70305@joelmerrick.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <921ad39e041009110323a7c7b5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <921ad39e04101102491cfa4c9a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <59351.81.93.10.44.1097489201.squirrel@81.93.10.44>
	 <200410111248.00412.tarax@arkitekts.org>
	 <921ad39e041011052270094b3e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <416A7E21.70305@joelmerrick.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-performance] Gentoo-performance forum?
X-Archives-Salt: 33b5e84b-47ce-4250-abc9-f7680cd02af8
X-Archives-Hash: 22ab5ca648822a36ff4dbb2da0a90ba4

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:35:45 +0100, Joel Merrick <joel@joelmerrick.com> wrote:
> Rather than a forum, wouldn't it be better to implement an acutal
> performance DB?
> 
What?

> b.t.w... it might have been knocked off the thread, but where's the
> entry for actual hardware specifics? Arch, CPU, RAM etc..

Hardware specific issues go to kernel/hardware, hardware specific
*performance* issues would go to the performance forum. Where's the
mistery?

--
gentoo-performance@gentoo.org mailing list