[darcs-users] darcs patch: Hide the inefficient "darcs put" command.

Dan Pascu dan at ag-projects.com
Fri Dec 5 16:02:33 UTC 2008


On Friday 05 December 2008, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 00:10:42 -0800, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> >> I propose that the "darcs put" command be hidden until it becomes as
> >> efficient as "darcs get".  That means it is not listed in "darcs
> >> help" or in the user manual.
> >
> > I have no objections.  Anybody else?
>
> I object.
>
> I was the one implementing the infamous put command and the reason
> that I did it is that it provides for a use case which isn't possible
> with the other darcs commands afaik (or at least very cumbersome). It
> goes like this. I have the following setup: a laptop which I use quite
> a lot for hacking and a server which provides reliable storage and
> possibility to publish repositories on the web. Now, it's very common
> that I create a repository on my laptop when I start hacking on a
> project. After the initial bit of hacking I want to put this
> repository on the server. Doing this with the get command from the
> server is highly inconvenient for two reasons. First of all my laptop
> doesn't have a fixed ip address so I would have to look it up.
> Secondly I would have to be able to log in on my laptop via ssh or
> have a small webserver installed to be able to publish the patches to
> the server. On linux this is fine since sshd is fairly standard. On
> Windows otoh this is very inconvenient. So I see the put command as
> filling a very important niche. Note also that this use case doesn't
> require put to be that efficient. It's only a very small initial repo
> that is transfered with put and so its inefficiencies are bearable, at
> least that's my experience.
>
> When I implemented put I was fully aware of that it was inefficient.
> My plan was to have a working command quickly and then optimize it.
> Unfortunately I ran completely out of energy before having completed
> the optimizations. I was kind of hoping that someone else would take
> care of that but it seems that not sufficiently many people use the
> put command to be bothered by its inefficiencies.
>
> Despite its warts I think put should stay and remain documented. It
> fills a small but important niche. But feel free to document the
> warts.

I agree. I have this use case as well and I consider it important.

-- 
Dan


More information about the darcs-users mailing list