On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, as with all caches, yes, the cache will need to be kept coherent. This is independent of how we refer to patches. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
