httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <>
Subject Re: 2.0.24 tagged.
Date Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:24:48 GMT
> From: "Bill Stoddard" <>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:33 PM
> > > > My issue is that table merges are a o*n problem, while hash merges are
an o*n2
problem :(
> > >
> > > Hash merge is O(mn) in the worst case (the case when your hash function completely
> > > :-).  The merge will tend to O(mlogn).
> That varies based on the number of directory merges, as well, and how large the base
table is.
> > Okay, I've thought about this some.  Your veto of my patch is unreasonable.
> Hmmm?  Perhaps, but I committed effectively the same code an hour ago, because I'm not
> to defend my veto, nor contribute any further to this clueless discussion.

Sorry, I discovered this after I sent my note. I -still- have not received the CVS
notification of the change you made a couple of hours ago :-(. I don't catorgorize the
discussion as 'clueless', but whatever...


> Either which way, I don't have any
> more energy for this, it's sapped a good week of my life, as it stands, on an issue
> (table -> hash) that I had 0 interest in :(

Ditto. I thought Brians patch was pretty good. I missed the dir_merge problem during
review. My bad and I've learned a good lesson.  I appreciate your effort to fix Brian's
patch but I spent a -lot- of time debugging the damn seg fault that resulted. I don't
blame you or anyone else.  Software development is about learning from mistakes. You are a
good developer if you don't make the same mistakes more than once :-)



View raw message