From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 29 14:05:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF2289F for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:05:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dnebdal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-la0-x22a.google.com (mail-la0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C989331F for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id fg20so8735192lab.15 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+WfgvtGa+zFt/TPPStL/rCdP1KWg6TG0M5cT0WdPGTg=; b=o2mt5OWcVgW78GzHe7APSSlE/i+0PAsxi3CfpnCkM724c+QGbwTEOpkHKePyqwOfgd Mh615EGKNTyw0Of8PKz62VJ9uFdmYDkdzjF0U0pwOoGWE192YJoABy7MSIYtfnYvKiRS SL2D7teOnZp+T5lqR/B8TSR1gbnGUeLWSRsg8jKRMCkClCrW8uOu82gFk9CMU/KUd+m5 YSxELDpOqp5wMQOyG9Fxnt61IR3fmj/+AhH+oq+VeRGuhqfjHV5Gm5T1o+yqN9Ij6anY RjxkefGb52D6p9DKshB3b2S3KpJvJ6wCaOecOURw4RzIJm9Gfuxxgand4wHnzn+HbsIu QsGA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.9.104 with SMTP id y8mr1470791laa.1.1369836301686; Wed, 29 May 2013 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.200.9 with HTTP; Wed, 29 May 2013 07:05:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130528000505.6c506b1a@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20130524212318.B967FE6739@smtp.hushmail.com> <20130527140609.3d3b9d23@gumby.homeunix.com> <444ndofstn.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20130527153440.020ab20e@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3798C.9000004@marino.st> <20130527173633.0e196a08@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A38D87.8070102@marino.st> <20130527183620.5ff9d8b0@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3A813.1060908@marino.st> <20130527210924.36432f32@gumby.homeunix.com> <51A3C331.901@marino.st> <20130528000505.6c506b1a@gumby.homeunix.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:05:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: The vim port needs a refresh From: Daniel Nebdal To: RW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:05:03 -0000 On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:05 AM, RW wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:33:53 +0200 > John Marino wrote: > >> On 5/27/2013 22:09, RW wrote: >> > On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:38:11 +0200 >> > John Marino wrote: >> > >> > >> > No, that's something you just made up. It is however vague and >> > anecdotal. We have only one data point that we know is from this >> > year and not self-inflicted, even if the others are, for all we >> > know it could still be fast most of the time. >> > >> > Some monitoring would be useful. >> > >> >> However you slice it, a distinfo file with 1000+ entries is >> completely absurd. 95% of the blame goes to Vim developers. >> However, it is within the realm of feasibility to pre-package patches >> in batches of 100 (or conversely 1 tarball of patches rolled for >> every time patch count hits multiple of 100). > > In other words downloading every patch twice. > As a side note: Patches 100-199 (as an example) are 600KB, while a tar.xz of them is 115KB. Data-wise, it's closer to "downloading each patch 1.2 times". -- Daniel "let's poke the fresh paint on this bikeshed" Nebdal