[darcs-users] Benchmarking "get"
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Wed Mar 18 01:33:41 UTC 2009
Lele Gaifax writes:
> Dunno if/how git can be made lazy...
Create a shallow clone with a history truncated to the
specified number of revisions. A shallow repository has a
number of limitations (you cannot clone or fetch from it, nor
push from nor into it), but is adequate if you are only
interested in the recent history of a large project with a
long history, and would want to send in fixes as patches.
Read carefully, I don't know if that's good enough to compare to Darcs
To avoid *local* copies, git also can share object data across local
repos in a number of ways, both read-only and read-write. (Note that
all git *objects*, like Darcs patches, are write-once; the RO vs. RW
distinction refers to whether new objects in repo A will be written to
A/.git/objects (in which case the alternative is read-only), or to the
alternative object source.)
I don't know whether any of the variants would be worth adding to
Darcs (Darcs already makes hardlinks to parent's patches when
branching on a local filesystem, IIRC?, which should be the big win,
the rest are tweaks unless you have to cross filesystems).
More information about the darcs-users