On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 18:11:02 +0200, Petr Rockai wrote: > the slowdown itself is not a blocker, I'd agree. However, the memory > consumption might be more of an issue -- it will currently hold up to 100 > patches worth of files in memory. Fixing that is the other part of the changes > I have proposed -- about the SlurpDirectory (or SlurpMonad) refactor, which I > am not sure how would look like yet and where I think it might be more of a > risk than we can afford for 2.1.
Ok. Well then let's push this to the next release! > > Also, for this particular case, maybe it would be useful to have > > darcs check --only-test > Well, depending on how timings turn out after we improve check/repair times, > I'd probably try to avoid that extra flag and the associated clutter. Yeah, we do generally try to avoid introducing new flags and commands if we can help it. Thanks, -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
