On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:41:22PM -0400, David Roundy wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:37:59PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > > Actually, now that I think about it, optimize --checkpoint *also* is > > > worse than an "initial record", which is one of the things that darcs > > > has trouble with--but Ian has largely fixed in darcs-unstable. > > > > IMHO, we should use a different format for checkpoints -- hunk patches > > from the empty tree are not a good idea. > > > > Changing the on-disk format of patches will help a lot. > > Indeed, that should help. But even as things are now, a darcs-unstable > initial record of the linux kernel
[...] > The memory usage is way worse than that of tar, but I'm optimistic that > we can improve things a bit in that realm. Perhaps (for example) by > storing PackedString file paths, or by making the directory-reading portion > of slurp lazy. In any case, 450M isn't such bad maximum memory consumption > for a project the size of the kernel. Memory use shouldn't be anywhere near that. Do you have the patch to make the test not hang on to the patch (can't remember if that's in d-u yet)? If not, you can instead give --no-test to record. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
