From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: On being web-friendly and why info must die Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20141205123549.GA29331@thyrsus.com> <2815659.zRQ0WWWeRr@descartes> <20141205175810.GD3120@thyrsus.com> <87lhmlncb1.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <20141205193643.GB5067@thyrsus.com> <87tx19rd1b.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141205215138.GF7784@thyrsus.com> <54823617.4000406@cs.ucla.edu> <83k325195l.fsf@gnu.org> <5482D94B.2070102@cs.ucla.edu> <5484FF31.5010808@cs.ucla.edu> <5485FC59.5030700@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418091603 12647 80.91.229.3 (9 Dec 2014 02:20:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 02:20:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs To: chad Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 09 03:19:57 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XyAP7-0001dA-5a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 03:19:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyAP6-000326-Mk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52046) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyAOv-0002wA-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyAOm-0005Ir-0O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:45 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:22637) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyAOl-0005IW-Tc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:19:35 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjsPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQRWIxALNBIUGA0kiFPWWQEBAQcBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYsBpC6BeIQZIYJ3AQEB X-IPAS-Result: AjsPAOwQflRFxLi7/2dsb2JhbABbgweDYIVaxR0EAgKBJBcBAQEBAQF8hAMBAQRWIxALNBIUGA0kiFPWWQEBAQcBAQEBHpBvB4RIBYsBpC6BeIQZIYJ3AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,502,1413259200"; d="scan'208";a="99919241" Original-Received: from 69-196-184-187.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.196.184.187]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Dec 2014 21:19:34 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id C71126610C; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:19:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (chad's message of "Mon, 8 Dec 2014 15:39:21 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179512 Archived-At: >>>> I think I understand why they don't want to fix the processing speed. >>>> But we should still push them to provide workarounds. "Separate >>>> compilation" would solve this problem >>> It might, yes. But that sounds like more work than switching input formats >>> would be, >> Why? Are you saying this would require work on our side? I'd assume >> this work would mostly be on the Texinfo-maintainers side. > Haven't the Texinfo maintainers already repeatedly said "yes, we > know the new version is very slow. We can't find anyone to do the > necessary work otherwise.", thus forcing the choice between speed > and unicode support? That's not what I'm talking about. I know that the MB/s processed by Texinfo-5 is much slower than Texinfo-4 and is unlikely to improve noticeably in the foreseeable future. What I'm asking is whether Texinfo-5 could be improved so that it can do the work by processing fewer megabytes, because it would only process the modified files: the Elisp manual is about 3MB of Texinfo code, but usually you only work on a single one of those files, which is at most 300kB, so doing separate-compilation would give you a speed up of at least 10, making the result a lot more tolerable (and on which we can have control, so if it's still not fast enough we can split the manual into smaller files). Stefan