On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 21:57 +0200, Mark Kubacki wrote: > Hi Zac, > > In one word: Great! I love your modifications. Thank you! > > Regarding functionality – there is still some room for more > optimizations and more features. For example, if the local copy is no > older than x seconds then there's no need to contact any remote > server. Expect patches. > > As for the bug. As long as the "If-Modified-Since" header is sent > Portage has done its job. Some servers use the header as "ETag" > replacement and don't do the more costly greater-than comparison (see > also [1]; TIMESTAMP_TOLERANCE should be a configuration option so > users can set it to 0 now that the "mtime"-patch has been accepted). > And, BaseHandler are chained automatically by "build_opener". > Nevertheless, I will look into the whole issue the next days. > Mark, I did similar for the layman-2.0 code which has been running with the header info for quite a while now. After it had been running for a good amount of time I put in a request to infra for some usage stats. The If-Modified-Since header does make a big difference for layman. Now I just really need to make a good blog post with a few graphs of the data. You can view the results on this bug if your interested: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398465 -- Brian Dolbec