Hi, Ganesh Sittampalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'll repeat what I mentioned above: it's faster and better to refer >> to patches by hash than by number. It takes a bit more space, but >> that shouldn't be a significant downside, and the upside is that you >> have easy O(1) lookup of patch name and contents, and potentially a >> human-readable database (assuming the humans don't mind grubbing >> around in _darcs/patches/). > > The hashes are far bigger than a 32-bit int, so it'll be a lot more space > (proportionately), which I think would be enough to matter on large repos > with large patches. I would also expect it to be significantly slower to > read the larger file, which I would expect to outweigh the time cost of > looking up the numbers later. I'd just like to point out that the HashedIO hashes of patches *will* change upon commutation, so in case you use them, you have to arrange for writeout of a commuted patch to invalidate the cache, or you will miss relevant patches upon a later annotate.
Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
