David Roundy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:11:40AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
Anyhow, could you retry this test with the above change in methodology,
and let me know if (a) the pull is still slow the first time and (b) if
it's much faster the second time (after the reverse unpull/pull)?
I
David Roundy wrote:
Anyhow, could you retry this test with the above change in methodology, and
let me know if (a) the pull is still slow the first time and (b) if it's
much faster the second time (after the reverse unpull/pull)?
I think I've done it in both directions now, and it got faster,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:29:20PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of the second prerelease of darcs
two, darcs 2.0.0pre2.
Thanks!
Continuing my performance tests, I tried unpulling and re-pulling a bunch
of patches in a GHC tree.
David Roundy wrote:
I am pleased to announce the availability of the second prerelease of darcs
two, darcs 2.0.0pre2.
Thanks!
Continuing my performance tests, I tried unpulling and re-pulling a bunch
of patches in a GHC tree. I'm unpulling about 400 patches using
--from-tag, and then
Thanks for the timings. Alas, I'm leaving in the morning for vacation, so
I'm not sure when I'll have time to profile these operations. And I'm
still puzzling over how to speed up darcs get (i.e. the long discussion of
http pipelining, which will not, of course, do anything to help the poor
