From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason at zx2c4.com (Jason A. Donenfeld)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:09:15 +0100
Subject: The road to v0.10.1 or v0.11
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9rUbNW7Jkh2TDiXTJP+Z=+d7SgdgvWp3nPkcwL9ZdPdiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHmME9p6ubctzVTwRurFW+Vg9fYLwjKAoPr6_MwbKHJiHKv_YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140117162851.GM7608@serenity.lan>
 <CAHmME9rUbNW7Jkh2TDiXTJP+Z=+d7SgdgvWp3nPkcwL9ZdPdiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHmME9os0_w=hkcd+cBSrUF-5DuoWTr6S+4=-hWRPb2u-6C-7w@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason at zx2c4.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:28 PM, John Keeping <john at keeping.me.uk> wrote:
>> I really can't see this being sensible without moving to libgit2.  As
>> long as we stick with libgit.a then we need to fork for each request so
>> I'm not sure there's much benefit to supporting FastCGI without moving
>> to something that lets us free resources when we're done processing a
>> request.
>
> The advantage would be not having to reparse the config and scan for
> repos on every.single.solitary.request.

Oh, and we could avoid a fork() for cached pages...