[darcs-users] some darcs comments from Johan Tibell
Trent W. Buck
twb at cybersource.com.au
Mon Jan 4 06:45:09 UTC 2010
Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> writes:
> But for larger projects, I tend to have a single directory just for that
> (so cd darcs-hacking; darcs get --lazy http://darcs.net review-291)
It would probably be more efficient (in terms of I/O, but not typing) to
say something like:
darcs get --lazy unstable review-291
# Now change the default push/pull repo...
darcs pull --set-defaults --repo review-291 http://darcs.net
If your cache is seeded, this ought to be about as good:
darcs get --lazy http://darcs.net review-291
darcs optimize --relink --repo review-291 --sibling unstable
>> > fs runs Fedora Core 3 and has two SATA disks in a software RAID 1 array.
>> > I can only assume that when people complain about slow branch creation
>> > - they're *really* impatient;
>> > - they're using NFS on 100baseT (like me);
>> This is on local disk.
> Trent: any ideas on what's going on here? Is there some good reason
> for this sort of discrepancy if any?
Discrepancy between which two cases? NFS is really slow for me due to
the horrible virtualization hacks that I have in place, and because NFS
has trouble with lots of small files (e.g. Maildir or _darcs/patches).
>> > - they're not using --lazy for branches;
>> Aside: I want all my history locally so I don't use lazy.
> Even when branching an already local repo? What's there to lose?
darcs get --lazy branch1 branch1-second-attempt
rm -rf branch1
# Oops! Potential data loss!
I have lazy on by default, and I very occasionally shoot myself in the
foot in such a manner -- usually when publishing a private repo using
"get" instead of "put".
> So would a good default be for darcs changes to always print out the
> patch-info hash for each patch?
> Thu Dec 24 11:34:44 GMT 2009 Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
> hash: 20091224113444-23c07-5bd7128afb3ad9a32c49e59f4f5fdfc5db05eb88
> * Resolve issue1362: Mention repo name in mail send body
Or perhaps more generally, to make the patch format that Darcs displays
customizable? Git has --pretty=foo and hg has --format=foo, for a few
pre-defined values of foo. There's always "darcs changes --xml | xslt",
but that's a pain in the arse, and wouldn't affect e.g. the amend-record
More information about the darcs-users