The vim port needs a refresh

[RW]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:33:53 +0200
John Marino wrote:

> On 5/27/2013 22:09, RW wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:38:11 +0200
> > John Marino wrote:
> >
> >
> > No, that's something you just made up. It is however vague and
> > anecdotal. We have only one data point that we know is from this
> > year and not self-inflicted, even if the others are, for all we
> > know it could still be fast most of the time.
> >
> > Some monitoring would be useful.
> >
> 
> However you slice it, a distinfo file with 1000+ entries is
> completely absurd.  95% of the blame goes to Vim developers.
> However, it is within the realm of feasibility to pre-package patches
> in batches of 100 (or conversely 1 tarball of patches rolled for
> every time patch count hits multiple of 100).

In other words downloading every patch twice. 


> At the very, very least maybe only HTTP hosts are listed for VIM (I
> just checked bsd.sites.mk, the ftp sites are all at the end of the
> list now)

All 13 http links would  have to fail before the ftp links are
tried.
 
> It looks like some of this was addressed in January though:

I already told you that.

> 
> I may have still been on the old bsd.sites.mk with a site > 10
> seconds per file.  (this is yet another data point) 

We already knew that it was slow before January, so that's irrelevant.