On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
On 23 Apr 2008, at 00:00, zooko wrote:
2. Starting using hashed-format repositories.
Interesting benchmarks! What about the darcs 2 repository format?
I didn't try it. Here -- now that you ask so nicely, I'll do so.
Okay, the result is
On 29 Apr 2008, at 16:36, zooko wrote:
I didn't try it. Here -- now that you ask so nicely, I'll do so.
That wasn't an order to re-run the benchmarks, just a question :) But
thanks anyway
Okay, the result is that darcs-2-format performs exactly the same
way that hashed-format does on
On 23 Apr 2008, at 00:00, zooko wrote:
2. Starting using hashed-format repositories.
Interesting benchmarks! What about the darcs 2 repository format? If
you have no need to preserve darcs 1 compatability, should you switch
to the new format? How come you didn't do that in this case?
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:57:52 +0100
Ashley Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29 Apr 2008, at 16:36, zooko wrote:
I think the point of the darcs-2-format is new improved patch
semantics:
Ok, since I have no need to preserve darcs-1 compatability and the
new format is as fast as the
Folks:
We use darcs to manage our source code in the http://allmydata.org
project (it is an open source, secure, decentralized file system).
Our trunk repository [1] currently has 2,484 patches in it. The
current version of the source code has 269 files, at a total of 13
MiB bytes (some
