On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Isaac Dupree <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
This is of course the obvious question, but - I take it there was some reason neither that the linking or no-pristine features didn't help you? (I mean http://darcs.net/manual/node4.html#SECTION00460000000000000000 ) -- gwern _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
