On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 11:32:57AM -0500, Max Battcher wrote: > Dan Pascu wrote: >> There is one use case of a copy without a pristine tree that cannot >> be substituted by a tree without a working copy, which is to offer >> a viewable copy that you do not edit; for example if you have your >> web pages under version control in darcs and a copy of the >> repository is directly viewable on the web.
In that case I'd just have normal repos on the web server, but another option would be to use a "smart" server that utilizes "darcs show contents" and "darcs show files". > Indeed. As the originator of the --no-working-directory request I'm > extremely happy to see it back on the discussion table. With > pristine.hashed and a global cache a server utilizing > --no-working-directory can be very space efficient in storing a > large number of related repositories. Ah, and of course files in the pristine directories are hard-linkable (right?) but the working tree files definitely aren't. So if you have multiple repos with patches in common, --no-working-tree results in a bigger space saving. (For me, I think the bigger advantaged of --no-working-tree is that it makes it impossible to accidentally edit the working tree. As Dan said, disk space is pretty cheap.) _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
