Re: KBuild 2.5 Impressions

[Daniel Phillips]

On Friday 31 May 2002 02:09, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> don't forget that the kbuild2.5 patch was a lot smaller before keith was
> told to "go away and don't bother anyone until the speed problem is fixed"
> a large part of the fix was to use the mmapped db stuff that Larry McVoy
> made available instead of useing the standard db libraries on the system.

I haven't seen complaints about the size of the patch, there are plenty of
patches of similar size.  I've only seen the request to break it up, and
as I showed, it's not that hard, so...

Though I can certainly see why somebody who is weary from a long trip
could react badly to the suggestion that they should go take a further
hike around the block.

> one possible way to make this more 'incramental' would be to make a
> version of kbuild2.5 that used the standard db stuff and is 200% slower
> then the existing kbuild and then after it's accepted put in the patch to
> speed it up to where it's 17% faster (IIRC the numbers Daniel posted
> earlier today) by converting the db that's used. Somehow I doubt that
> crippling the speed mearly to make it 'incramental' would make many people
> happy.

The way I see it, all that's required with respect to the db is to give
it its own patch.  Out of regard to Larry, who contributed it, even make
it a BitKeeper patch ;-)

-- 
Daniel