On 13/05/09 04:54, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Eric Kow<[email protected]> writes:
Nevertheless, if the GHC team are going to postpone their switch, what
can we do to make their current darcs experience more enjoyable?
Do we know how long GHC plan (either officially or unofficially) to
defer their VCS migration for? It's all very well for us to talk about
a twelve-month roadmap for major improvements, but if GHC are really
looking at migrating in the next quarter, that's not going to help.
It's probably time we took another look at the options, that's all.
Darcs still doesn't really support the development model we'd really
like though (long-lived branches and lots of merging). On the other
hand, darcs is supporting our other workflows reasonably well - for
example pulling fixes into the stable branch is usually nice and easy.
We still have problems with darcs on Windows - e.g. see Simon PJ's
recent bug report about a random "permission denied" failure that left
the repo in a trashed state.
Maybe we could get them to use hashed format repositories with --lazy
so that they don't have to ship tarballs around?
I think that getting their team using darcs 2.2 and --hashed
repositories is a relatively easy thing to do, and would have
significant benefits for them.
I want to try out hashed again. Last time I tried it, there were
performance problems, but it turned out that hashed repos were using a
global cache by default, and my home dir is NFS-mounted. There was a
problem with turning off the global cache IIRC - has that been fixed
now? I'd really like to either disable the cache, or point it to
somewhere locally mounted.
Does the cache still put all its files in one directory? That was one
source of the performance problems, I think.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
