On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 22:44:03 +1000, Trent W.Buck wrote: > Sun Apr 26 20:02:50 EST 2009 Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> > * Remove stale --no-pristine-tree docs.
I've applied this one! > Sun Apr 26 22:24:01 EST 2009 Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> > * Refactor "darcs optimize" help. I get the impression that this is both a rewrite and a refactor. If not, then I'm taking it as a chance to revisit pre-existing documentation. I'll be happy to apply this on your say-so, but for now I'll just make some comments and see what you think. Reading this patch has been quite useful to me, but it made me learn something new, namely that we've been aware of the pristine timestamp issue from the beginning :-) That's one thing I like about the patch review process, us getting a better awareness of the code we're working in. Refactor "darcs optimize" help. ------------------------------- > + "The `darcs optimize --relink' command hard-links patches that the\n" ++ > + "current repository has in common with its peers. Peers are those\n" ++ > + "repositories listed in _darcs/prefs/sources, or defined with the\n" ++ > + "`--sibling' option (which can be used multiple times).\n" ++ > + "\n" ++ > + "Darcs uses hard-links automatically, so this command is rarely needed.\n" > ++ > + "It is most useful if you used `cp -r' instead of `darcs get' to copy a\n" > ++ > + "repository, or if you pulled the same patch from a remote repository\n" ++ > + "into multiple local repositories.\n" ++ You're talking about hashed repos here, right? I also wonder if optimize --relink-pristine even has any effect on hashed repositories (it's old code). Or would it just be irrelevant if you've got caches set up anyway. Short of there being a bug, is there any reason for hashed repos to go out of synch? And if there isn't maybe we should just remove this flag as well and push people to use hashed repositories. Just my paring impulse talkin' just more of that paring instinct talking. > +-- FIXME: someone needs to grovel through the source and determine > +-- just how optimizeInventory differs from do_reorder. --twb, 2009-04 Anybody want to look into this right now? I get the feeling we ought to be doing something more organised about questions about the source code, like having a central wiki page for them... > + "The `darcs optimize --reorder' command is a more comprehensive version\n" > ++ > + "of the default optimization. It reorders patches with respect to ALL\n" ++ > + "tags, rather than just the latest tag.\n" That's interesting. How do we know this? > +-- | Writes out a fresh copy of the inventory that minimizes the > +-- amount of inventory that need be downloaded when people pull from > +-- the repository. ... (thanks) > optimizeInventory :: RepoPatch p => Repository p C(r u t) -> IO () > optimizeInventory repository@(Repo r opts rf (DarcsRepository _ c)) = > do ps <- read_repo repository -- 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
