Hi everyone, this darcs init x problem made me have a look at darcs put, and the criticisms it received in the past (mostly: slowness and lack of progress report, see darcs-users archives of December 2008, eg http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-December/016452.html ).
Using init+push rather than get is inefficient because with get, the pristine tree is copied once for all, while with init+push it is built on-the-fly for each patch, is that right? Implementing put with get for local copies is easy, but via ssh (the typical use of put), that's a problem. A solution, explained by Petr at http://www.mail-archive.com/darcs-users@darcs.net/msg11858.html , would be: ssh -R 2000:localhost:22 somewhere.else SSH_PORT=2000 darcs get localhost:some/repo But this requires the user to have a ssh server on their local machine, and ssh would prompt the password and maybe use the wrong username to connect back to the local machine. So, to remain simple, the put command via ssh has to be forward-only. Two options I see: 1) scp-ing a tarball of the local _darcs, untarring it and darcs-getting it. (darcs-reverting it would work but would leave all _darcs/prefs/ files like mots, email...). Seems dirty, but this is what put does: deploying a repository on a remote server. 2) adding a hidden "--put" flag to darcs push, and passing this flag to the call of darcs push by darcs put. --put would imply -a and disable pristine construction except for the last patch ? Then go as before, init+push. The implementation of the put command would remain compositional (=reusing other parts of darcs' code), thus less error-prone, I guess. I have the following assumptions on these solutions: Option 2) would be only a slight improvement of the current situation since we would still copy patches one by one, and also its implementation seems harder than 1). Option 1) requires a temporary directory on the remote machine to uncompress the tarball, this is maybe a downside. I'm more in favor of Option 1), especially since there is currently work by Alexey on darcs optimize --http. Maybe we could use the same code for darcs-getting the contents of a tarball? Once we can write the following, the rest will flow: $ darcs get repo_name.tar.bz2 # contains only the _darcs directory Are we risking feature creep with that ? What do you think? guillaume _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
