[darcs-users] Darcs 2.4 - performance testing volunteers needed

Nathan Gray kolibrie at graystudios.org
Wed Dec 23 03:15:49 UTC 2009

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 06:01:27PM -0800, Jason Dagit wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Nathan Gray <kolibrie at graystudios.org> wrote:
> > I would also like to see darcs1 in the comparison.  We have not
> > upgraded yet because we have large repos.  It would be nice to
> > know if darcs 2.4 is fast enough compared to darcs1 for us to
> > consider upgrading.
> Which is more important to helping you make the decision:
> 1) darcs 1.x binary vs. darcs 2.4 binary on a darcs-1 formatted repo; OR
> 2) darcs 2.4 binary comparing darcs-1 format speed to darcs-2 format speed?

Currently we are running darcs 1.x on a darcs-1 format repo.  We
would like to upgrade to darcs 2.x and convert to a darcs-2 format repo.

To make the move, we would like to know that darcs 2.4 is not
slower (either on darcs-1 format or preferably darcs-2 format)
than what darcs 1.x is on the darcs-1 format.

> I suspect that #2 will be included but #1 is more work for
> benchmarkers (only because darcs 1.x is pre-cabal and thus harder to
> build for many people).  It valuable to know up front which you are
> expecting so we can plan for it in the benchmark.

I would like for it to be possible for me to benchmark using
darcs 1.x, but do not want to force anyone else to do that.
Perhaps the benchmark can allow the user to specify the names of
specific binaries to test, or something like that.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20091222/7daac8d0/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list