On 7/26/07, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:14:27AM +0200, Alexander Staubo wrote:
> This is a small repo -- 3,500 files or around 24MB in total (excluding
> _darcs, which has 5,600 files, or 64MB). Perhaps this operation is
> fairly quick with recently-checkpointed repos, but I can't count on
> this being the case; the operation I am implementing cannot take more
> than a second or so.
A local partial get is much slower than a local full get, or at least it
should be.
I didn't know this. All right, good point, though there's the
additional snag: You cannot "get" from a partial repo -- you get this
obscure error ("openBinaryFile: does not exist"), and you have to add
--partial. So while performance on full repos might be fine, partial
repos would be horrible.
[snip]
You could also get the remote patch contents with darcs changes --repo -v.
Silly me, I had no idea that the changes command could do remote
repos, since most of the usual repo-interaction commands don't. That's
great news.
[snip]
> The process for push is similar, but I need to use "darcs changes"
> instead to build up the original file; in fact, I guess I can skip the
> read-the-pristine-file step and simply use the --to-match argument to
> get the entire change history.
You could also just process the output of darcs annotate on the file to
remove the annotations. It's a bit stupid, but allows you to use darcs to
get the version of the file you want.
Or if you really just want diffs, why not use darcs diff? Or darcs annotate
--unified?
You're right -- for the push case I can use "annotate" to get the
original file, and I can use "diff" to get the diff instead of reading
the output of "push --dry-run --verbose".
On the other hand, if I implement the reconstruction logic for pulls,
I could just reuse it for pushes, and sharing the logic between the
two cases would be beneficial. The two operations are, as far as I can
tell, completely analogous.
What would have really helped is if "annotate" could support the
--repo argument for remote repos. Then I could trivially reconstruct
the ancestor file for both pulls and pushes, and it would all be using
Darcs itself instead of my home-brewed patch reconstruction logic,
improving future compatibility and reducing the possibility of
unforeseen edge cases.
Alexander.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
