[darcs-users] darcs patch: switch Darcs.Patch.FileName to be ByteString.Char8 int...

Jason Dagit dagit at codersbase.com
Fri Oct 2 21:37:57 UTC 2009


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:10:41PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 01:08:34PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
> > >
> > > > $ darcs --version
> > > > 1.0.9rc1 (release candidate 1)
> > > >
> > > > $ time darcs record -lam 'imported linux-2.6.31.1' +RTS -sstderr
> > > > ...
> > > > 39 Mb total memory in use
> > > >
> > >
> > > Only 39Mb?  That's less than the compressed patch, so I find it hard to
> > > believe.
> >
> > If you're just concatenating all diffs into a patch, you don't need
>
> to have it all in memory at once.
>

I finally found the bug I was thinking of:
http://bugs.darcs.net/issue162

Quoting David:

> Just to clarify here. We did at one time support lazy operation in record
> (the
> key was that you had to use --all, or specify 'a' at the beginning of the
> interactive prompt), and it's possible to do so. However, somewhere along
> the
> way this feature broke, and I'm just as glad that it did. I don't like the
> idea
> of darcs creating patches that it can't hold in memory, as it *very*
> severely
> limits what you can do with them, and I'd rather our users don't get stuck
> in a
> situation where darcs has created a patch so big that it can't lift it.
>

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20091002/70f2b7ed/attachment.htm>


More information about the darcs-users mailing list