[darcs-users] Re: Darcs check grows out of control

Juliusz Chroboczek Juliusz.Chroboczek at pps.jussieu.fr
Sat Mar 25 18:11:41 UTC 2006


Me:

>> I try to be very clear (some would say rude) when I reject a patch.
>> For every patch you send, you should see feedback on darcs-devel
>> unless I push the patch.

>> I do not mind seeing patches multiple times; quite the contrary, it
>> means I don't miss any.

Jason:

> And so what is the status of my patches pertaining to issue79?

If you didn't receive any feedback for them, please resubmit them.

> I have no easy way to check.  Do you?

There are no pending patches in my mailbox mentioning issue 79, which
probably means that they were lost.  If that is the case, please
resubmit them, and accept my apologies.

> These patches are not mine as Zachary points out in another email. 

Sorry, while going through my mailbox, I got confused between Zachary
and you.  Apologies.

> [I think that] you could benefit from automated patch tracking.

Nobody ever claimed the contrary.  I would be very grateful if
somebody conceived a usable patch tracking system.

The current system is that patches end up in a specific mailbox, where
they are marked ``pending'' when I first notice them.  I delete a
patch from the mailbox when it either gets pushed or rejected.

The main advantage of this system over existing patch trackers is that
I do not need to use a web browser.

> I get what you're saying, but how can I know if you've lost something.

Lack of an ack after a timeout.

> Does anyone know how much of a patch is required to be in memory at
> once for darcs to be able to do its magic?

Roughly 2.3 times the size of the patch.  Yeah, that sucks.

The new patch format will reduce that to what I'd expect to be 1.5
times the size of the patch.

                                        Juliusz




More information about the darcs-users mailing list