Max Battcher wrote: > The only remaining argument is space efficiency ... and if you are > worried about working tree space on a desktop/laptop then you probably > have other problems to worry about...
GHC working tree is 100s of megabytes. I make a few branches to hack on a few features, it gets into the gigabytes. Then it comes time to do backups, and my backup space *is* rather limited (best current options are a shared backup disk, and DVD-Rs). I have gigabytes of hard-to-compress but highly redundant stuff lying around, when the only changes worth backing up should take up an amount of *kilobytes*! As someone who used to hack on things more, I have to say I am very relieved not to be carrying around those gigabytes of almost- untouched-but-still-worth-backing-up data anymore, one of the greatest weights I've felt of living in the open-source world. (ways in which we drive away people who like using low-powered systems.) I think it's worth some energy to mitigate. (although there's nothing obvious for darcs to do other than continuing becoming a well-optimized RCS in patch-interface and code) I think though, these repos of mine could be archived with context-files and darcs-send stuff (and hopefully then be able to reproduce it from the current versions of public repos)... if only there was something in the darcs manual explaining how to think that way. (maybe there is, I haven't looked for some time) -Isaac _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
