On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 00:32:07 -0800, Jason Dagit wrote: > 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?
I'll bet that the check failure is just a consequence of the performance regression noted in <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1731>, but if anybody wants to offer evidence to the contrary, please do file a report. > > > > || 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? I won't answer that now because it will confuse the issue (and also because I think we should go with it even if it's slightly less convenient) ;-) > Also, since the columns are labeled why is it important to pick one? It makes life easier for people reading the tables if they don't have to think about it! Also it makes things like comparing different versions of the same table easier. Consider if I want to compile results by you and Max into a single email. Much easier if folks could just scan down the list. The general principle here is that writers should be willing to accept a greater burden than their readers, because there is generally 1 writer to many readers. So if we take the time out to work out the best order (eg. by imposing a convention, or by having darcs-benchmark do it for us), that bit of effort pays off N-fold for the number of readers. > 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. Then let's go with the "intuitive" left-to-right order (older version first, 1 < 2 < 3). It's more robust because it's more likely to be what comes naturally anyway. OK, let me stress that this doesn't *really* matter. Nobody is going to make a big stink about it either way; it was just an innocent offside remark. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpFfq88PsE75.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
