> * First, there is the question of darcs put. I agree that having it is > important for the completeness of the command set. On the other hand, > the current implementation is really sub-par, and having users being > exposed to that as "normal darcs slugginess" sucks. We should at least > warn that it's currently advised against.
The implementation we have is not particularly invasive or difficult to maintain (unlike unrevert, for instance), and the command works (slowly) and has uses. So I don't see how just removing it would be an improvement, sorry. And "darcs help put" already says the command is inefficient. However, it's clear that generalizing the code of "get" to make it two-ways (ie, able to send over ssh) would yield a much faster "put" command with even less code footprint. g. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
