From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Release update Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:54:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87abaocmay.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <001901c96489$97132040$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <002201c96493$e7a9ba00$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1229993672 4856 80.91.229.12 (23 Dec 2008 00:54:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , Eli Zaretskii , Leo , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 23 01:55:37 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LEvYQ-0003zd-Na for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:55:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56809 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LEvXE-0001SS-7t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LEvXA-0001SD-W3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:05 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LEvXA-0001Rt-Hp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53197 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LEvXA-0001Rm-9u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:04 -0500 Original-Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:15731) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LEvX9-0004P0-2o; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:54:03 -0500 Original-Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so990782fgb.30 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:54:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aK3rekid7UPLx33O5ekL4SL4kyYLXY86RqA1QjRhcCA=; b=w5l12mvMkUtQsL++aVyX4kfXb2/a5ssEAjr7HFTWkdVioSApMqVS/+97ruuelIW20G zGhaBqveE66Qe9nSXhbkMWejve+2MG4qTO5mV9VjUCh7v+lPpDGtBwAv1tKyGObClqO/ 5ydHmK1DFVdUshZjwvQywg+mwqvLQwEOflxxo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=gyUWaweLEXKJTErGIxFY6yUnxuR2d0qQq2E1t2Rby3bsVcklYv2XP3RPQYJ0Er2N/a b5s0pIgLqCoJr7E9+BQ8/mQ6wiPaKpY9yKFDyBsxBFwYdgxhgg5esut4A5xzb3C6qwTr 0CL/iIQnL6LQgQjglZr2gPoPDKtBgkMYEzKSQ= Original-Received: by 10.86.53.8 with SMTP id b8mr4026227fga.58.1229993641989; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:54:01 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.86.1.8 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:54:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <002201c96493$e7a9ba00$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:107215 Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Drew Adams wrote: > That's exactly the behavior I see in Lennart's vanilla builds. It either takes > quite a long time or it comes up immediately. I was thinking that it usually > takes a long time, but trying now several times in a row, it looks like it's > about 50-50. Same thing for Lennart's build. FYI I do not see anything like this. The first time it takes a little bit longer, but then it is very quick. My pc is probably slower. Something with disk access, caching? Page file size? (Could that really matter in this situation??) My page file is 1.5GB and 3GB max (approx). But, hm, the time delay must be too long for such things. Some network problem?