On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 23:11:35 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > > In the meantime, I've filed http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1889 so that > > we don't accidentally release Darcs 2.5 with the regression. > > IMHO this is a very nice feature. It's worth a little release delay.
OK, I'll leave this to our Release Manager to decide if we should delay releasing Darcs 2.5 until darcs get --lazy has equivalent (or better) performance with packs or if we should simply hide the optimize --http feature (or ignore packs). Of course, Reinier has exactly the same discretion (as a benevolent dictator) to choose how to use his RM authority to make this decision, be it by fiat, delegation, voting, consensus or some combination of the four. :-) > > Note that there's also another potential perceived regression in that > > we get very little feedback when downloading packs. Even if it's > > actually much faster in reality, folks may *think* it's slower. > > > > Reporting from curl may be tricky. I would release with out it anyway. That reminds me: There is a feature request to use something called 'curl callbacks' for progress reporting <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1662>. Not sure how feasible/useful that would be. > * Reworking curl support. With packs we can probably drop pipelining > with not much performance harm (needs to be checked). Then we can use > curl simple interface. That would make code simpler, allow to get rid > of a separate thread (there was a bug about it), and let us use > Haskell curl bindings. Hmm, interesting. I presume that we'll still want to support the likely case that the remote repository is not using packs -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, please try +44 (0)1273 64 2905.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
