Comment 48 for bug 2065037

Revision history for this message
Stefano (luckylinux777) wrote :

Yeah, I should have done that. I'm really getting tired and sleepy, sorry about that.

The 28 seconds is the one we had before as well (the 27-28 s in ... v9, wasn't it ?

But this error caused the script / function to behave similarly to v4 in terms of timings. Could this indicate something else (e.g. that the original script contain some error) ?

But why this minimum of almost 30 seconds ? Is it to satisfy some RFC ?