Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>> httpd being in the top-10 always, fiddling with bugzilla URLs?
> >>> (Note, I don't have access to gcc.gnu.org, I'm relaying info from
> >>> multiple instances of discussion on #gcc and richi poking on it;
> >>> that said, it still might n
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:27:44PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> httpd being in the top-10 always, fiddling with bugzilla URLs?
> >>> (Note, I don't have access to gcc.gnu.org, I'm relaying info from multiple
> >>> instances
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>>>
>>> httpd being in the top-10 always, fiddling with bugzilla URLs?
>>> (Note, I don't have access to gcc.gnu.org, I'm relaying info from multiple
>>> instances of discussion on #gcc and richi poking on it; that said, it
>>> still might n
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
> >> at some of the long running instances, and they were coming from
> >> searchb
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
>> at some of the long running instances, and they were coming from
>> searchbots. I can't think of a good reason for this, so I have
>
On 05/16/2011 02:42 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 05/16/2011 02:32 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
> It routinely is. bugzilla performance is terrible most of the time
> for me (up to t
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 02:32 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
It routinely is. bugzilla performance is terrible most of the time
for me (up to the point of five timeouts in sequence), svn speed is
>>>
On 05/16/2011 02:32 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> It routinely is. bugzilla performance is terrible most of the time
>>> for me (up to the point of five timeouts in sequence), svn speed is
>>> mediocre at best, and people with access to gcc.gnu.org
Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > It routinely is. bugzilla performance is terrible most of the time
> > for me (up to the point of five timeouts in sequence), svn speed is
> > mediocre at best, and people with access to gcc.gnu.org often observe
> > loads > 25, mostly due to I
On 05/16/2011 02:22 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
It's not quite the same information, surely. Wouldn't searchers be
directed to an email rather than the bug itself?
>>>
>>> Yes, though there is a link in all mails.
>>
>> Right, so we are
Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> It's not quite the same information, surely. Wouldn't searchers be
> >> directed to an email rather than the bug itself?
> >
> > Yes, though there is a link in all mails.
>
> Right, so we are contemplating a reduction in search quality in exch
On 05/16/2011 02:10 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 05/16/2011 01:09 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
On 16/05/11 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM,
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 01:09 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/11 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I noticed that buglist.cgi
Andrew Haley writes:
> It's not quite the same information, surely. Wouldn't searchers be directed
> to an email rather than the bug itself?
The mail contains the bugzilla link, so they can easily get there if
needed.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 D
On 05/16/2011 01:09 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/11 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
at some o
Hi,
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 16/05/11 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
> >> at some of the long running instances, and they were coming fr
On 16/05/11 10:45, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
>> at some of the long running instances, and they were coming from
>> searchbots. I can't think of a good reason for t
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
> at some of the long running instances, and they were coming from
> searchbots. I can't think of a good reason for this, so I have
> committed this patch to the gcc
I noticed that buglist.cgi was taking quite a bit of CPU time. I looked
at some of the long running instances, and they were coming from
searchbots. I can't think of a good reason for this, so I have
committed this patch to the gcc.gnu.org robots.txt file to not let
searchbots search through list
19 matches
Mail list logo
