On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:01:23AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 16:56:05 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > > I'm also still wondering what the previously discussed optimization to > > annotate is that David mentioned in this thread: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg05822.html > > > > I asked for clarification back in August but no one replied. Where is this > > well known solution documented? > > Thanks for bringing that to the forefront. I'm sure there is discussion > on this buried in our mail archives somewhere. > > Also, I had a chance to speak with David a few weeks ago, and he > sketched out an idea for darcs annotate (sadly, I haven't had time to > transcribe my hand-written notes yet). > > As I understand it, the solution consists in building up some sort of > cache that associates filenames to the patches that modify them. Could > you confirm this, David?
Yes, any sort of mapping between files and patches that modify them would do. It's a simple problem (albeit extremely tedious), so it hasn't seemed worth documenting. Various people have volunteered to do it (or one person twice), and I'm pretty certain it's in the bug tracker as well. A quick look at Performance-tagged bugs in the bug tracker shows discussion of the problem in http://bugs.darcs.net/issue124 David
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
