On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:28:12PM +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Monday, April 7, 2008, 9:22:25 PM, you wrote: > > * I'm sure there are other new features, but this is all that comes to > > mind at the moment. > > there was some issues with efficiency of darcs 1.x. am i correctly > understood that these issues was not addressed by new release?
Some efficiency issues have dramatically improved. Others have gotten worse. I don't know how better to summarize the situation than that. > its hard to understand why darcs 2.0 is better than 1.x from your > announcement. afair from gsoc project your primary goal was to improve > patches flexibility? Yes, it's much better at dealing with conflicts, if you use the darcs-2 format. And it's less buggy than 1.0.9 is, which directly relates to one slowdown that I'm aware of. Try it and you can see whether you like it more. There's also the factor that darcs 1.0.x isn't going to see another release. If you don't want to switch to eventually darcs 2.0, then I would strongly recommend that you switch to some other revision constrol system. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
