Re: backwards compatibility problem with .cvspass?

[Karl Fogel]

"Derek R. Price" <derek.price@openavenue.com> writes:
> > I'm curious why you say it will take a little longer to run.  I
> > assumed we'd just treat the absence of an explicit port number as
> > being like an explicit 2401.  That shouldn't require more than a few
> > nanoseconds of overhead... Or is there an issue I'm missing here?
> 
> Each line in .cvspass was previously undergoing a simple strcmp against the
> current CVSROOT.  I'm going to have to parse each line and normalize then
> compare.

Oh, I see.  Yes, more time to a machine, but not noticeable at human
speeds (that's all I was concerned with).

Thanks,
-Karl