On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 06:42:16PM -0500, David Roundy wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Trent W. Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 06:35:53PM +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote: > >>>> Performance patches are *always* low priority, and should therefore > >>>> should only be made when they are both certain to be correct > >>> > >>> Please could you clarify what you mean by that? Much optimisation > >>> work will never be "certain to be correct". For example, the darcs > >>> annotate cache work will inevitably be too complicated to satisfy > >>> that criterion. Even the recent series of patches I submitted, which > >>> were all quite "local" in some sense, still needed some testing to > >>> shake out bugs, and there's certainly no absolute guarantee that > >>> there are none left. > >> > >> My first and absolute priority is to make darcs as bug-free as > >> possible. I understand that changes are necessary, and that any > >> change may introduce a bug, and therefore every change needs to be > >> carefully considered, what it's benefits are versus its risks. > > > > Do user complaints like "darcs is too slow and we are switching to > > git/hg" constitute bug reports? ;-) > > Most users who complain about darcs' speed complain about its scaling, > or at least problems for which it scales poorly. A constant factor > speed increase isn't going to keep them in the fold.
Granted. Sorry, I thought "performance patches" meant *all* patches that refactor to improve performance, not just the ones that reduce the Θ(k.x) constant k. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
