Re: New module proposal: tracker

On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 19:52 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:

> I didn't say that and that is not the case either. I did talk to various 
> people about improving the problems we have at GCDS this year. I also am 
> not against fixing it or helping towards fixing it. I just resent people 
> saying that we should fix a technology in the kernel because it "should 
> be better" and isn't designed with our particular use case in mind and 
> that it is our responsibility to do so before we can include Tracker.
> > Let's assume the indexer is still broken.
> Quite a large assumption
> > Work on the integration in the desktop as a showcase.
> > [1]: Note that GNOME has been particularly good about engaging X and
> > kernel developers in the past, and even doing the work when there wasn't
> > even movement. This is the sort of attitude we want to see from GNOME
> > projects.
> Rob has, I have, and Philip has really been doing a lot of too.
> I should also add, inotify is not the ONLY technology which we have been 
> discussing, setrlimit() is another and I could probably list a few 
> others which we have been talking about with kernel developers.

I would prefer if we avoid relying on kernel and inotify anyway (it will
never work on NFS in any event). We certainly dont want trackers
progress held up by kernel slackage

I believe getting GVFS to emit a ring buffer log file of timestamped
changes would be suffice for tracker to get into gnome and avoid
extensive crawling and monitoring. 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]