On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Eric Kow <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm going to snip the most interesting bits to me here... > > > === darcs === > > > > || darcs-2.2.1 | darcs-2.3.1 | darcs > > > ================++=====================+===================+=============== > > check || 11.7s 183.0M | 11.0s 55.0M | 42.4s > 258.0M > > repair || 11.8s 183.0M | 11.1s 55.0M | 44.2s > 272.0M > > > > === ghc-hashed === > > > > || darcs-2.2.1 | darcs-2.3.1 | darcs > > > ================++======================+====================+=============== > > check || 172.3s 1210.0M | 160.5s 146.0M | - > - > > repair || 173.0s 1287.0M | 127.7s 146.0M | 1190.6s > 355.0M > > Oh well, so Darcs 2.0.3 was a step forward in robustness but backwards > in performance; Darcs 2.3 made repair reasonable again and Darcs 2.4 > regressed a bit in the performance. Not the highest priority, but worth > looking into after the release. >
I hope we're not glossing over anything here. Is there a bug report for the check failure in the beta yet? It looks like 2.2 and 2.3 were able to check that repo, so why should we ship 2.4 if it fails to check it? > > || darcs-2.2.0 | darcs-2.2.1 | darcs-2.3.1 > | darcs > > Yeah, we should adopt a convention of what order we put these in. > I guess the left-to-right order, while less convenient is the most > intuitive. I don't really mind either way; let's just pick one! > Why is it less convenient? Also, since the columns are labeled why is it important to pick one? I'm someone who is unlikely to remember what order I used, or others used in the past, so to me the labels are significantly more valuable than a convention. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
