Hi Petr, Thanks to meeting and chatting with you at the hackathon, I have a much better grasp of our current --hashed performance problems.
As you explained it, one problem is that on the one hand, hashed pristine files can be shared across branches via hard-linking while on the other hand, darcs operations in one branch will synch the timestamps on those files with their working dir equivalents, thus invalidating the timestamps for the other branch. (So far so good?) One question: what if, as a temporary measure, we made a special exception that pristine cache files are copied from the caches, rather than linked from them. Patches will still be hard-linked, so we get most of the speedups, but pristine cache files will be copied to avoid the timestamp problem. Would this scheme work, i.e. by giving people the benefits of hashed repos (robustness, lazy get, caches) without making them pay the price of interminable Reading Pristines? Thanks! Eric (This also makes me wonder if my slow-filesystems issue was a red herring) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
