From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21168 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 10:15:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 29088 Received: (qmail 12405 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2011 10:15:50 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _spf.google.com designates 209.85.160.43 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HP6Osv/oQKjqAcp+5anlvz/IxdwR5V8VaYYo/+GVmdo=; b=EGq8wxbUEoyxCXITZS5v+/G9Vbi8595ARPNyU7EsH5HvBbHSFdwvst1afOlUhJSm98 3kAXiHBdYYo8RYU+24sZIfWwhZWXz4DgXlIYJyOW9b5K474xqNCg5ZsUPf4uU2yn7Sml mG8Dx6RSy6aohMkaxK6HNyovqGQm1B/UcS0qg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=BFlJ5saukjuBmi42MxdHc17UeuRFWNzXKakJqmD3BbS6mmL2vvCQtkaJ7EEO1izIBV dRZYYoV1SRYWjMuTxrOcrLt2pZfOPMggkcvklp0mVCIIVOemYrASD/ZNbaoXA80LODNj 8INxGPQj2KJ806yqMWUVIcJLJhH/TPlez09d4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: nikolai.weibull@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <87liyw7t0o.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:15:43 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lzyvhdbbB5oAwcwmvbHgmYQm46Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: Slowness issue with git completion From: Nikolai Weibull To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Mikael Magnusson , Frank Terbeck , zsh-workers@zsh.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:30, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> Felie Contreras wrote: >>> Are you interested in fixing this use-case even if it means to make >>> some compromises in correctness or not? >> >> No, I=E2=80=99m not. > > I am not used to zsh development, so is Nikolai's opinion shared by > the rest? I am primarily not interested in fixing it when you pose it to me in the manner that you do. You may not be aware of it, but your way of expressing yourself is rather inflammatory. There=E2=80=99s a big difference between writing Would you consider rewriting the code so that it would be a lot faster, while still being mostly correct? and what you wrote, which is a commandment hidden inside a question. If we can find a solution that=E2=80=99s a lot quicker and still maintains some of the nice features that we currently have, preferably correct tags and descriptions, then I=E2=80=99m certainly interested. There have, however, not been any suggestions made in this area until Frank posted his suggestion yesterday and perhaps Benjamin=E2=80=99s suggestion has some merits to it as well (posted today). Oliver also mentioned rewriting it in the way that he did for the perforce completion (or was it Subversion?). I did, as I=E2=80=99ve already said, try rewriting it along those lines, but it didn=E2=80=99t help. I=E2=80=99m glad that we=E2=80=99= re having this discussion, because, believe it or not, I=E2=80=99m not happy with the dela= ys either. I will, however, not be told what to do. > Even if I provide a fix that make things slightly less > correct but usable, you wouldn't take the patch? You haven=E2=80=99t offered to do so until now, so how could we take a stan= ce on it? What you=E2=80=99ve been saying so far is that /we/ should rewrite = it in a way that /you/ want it to work.