Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB andGCC]

[Michael Matz <matzmich at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

Hi,

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Jason Molenda wrote:

> OK, kidding aside, Ian's patch could be modified to keep the head
> revisions of branches in the fileattr cache file in addition to
> the trunk.  But someone would have to do that.  Goodness knows I
> don't have the time.

Well, if that patch would be available somewhere (up to now I didn't even
know it exists), then maybe more people would work on it (including me).

> The sourceware system is under a bit of memory pressure these days,
> which doesn't help; if these blocks could be cached for a longer
> period of time, this RCS file reading/parsing will go faster.

Isn't it now really time to have gcc's own cvs machine for non-anon cvs? I
mean currently it's even slower than subversions.gnu.org for normal
operations.

> > I noticed that we have more anoncvs processes running than authenticated
> > users; is there any way we could find out which CVS modules these
> > anonymous users currently access? (If it's gcc, we could see whether
> > we can simply disable anoncvs access to the gcc module.)
>
> None that I know of.  cvs logging bites.  We do track the # of
> bytes being sent/received from different hosts and the frequency
> with which hosts connect.  The host that downloaded the most number
> of bytes last week by anoncvs?  A purdue.edu site.  Two redhat.com
> and one suse.de

Hmm, probably charybdis, or?  That's the firewall.  Normally we shouldn't
create that much anoncvs traffic, as we rsync the gcc repository each hour
(or so).


Ciao,
Michael.