[darcs-users] reimplementing darcs put
kowey at darcs.net
Tue Jun 8 09:11:26 UTC 2010
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:06:42 +0200, Guillaume Hoffmann wrote:
> this darcs init x problem made me have a look at darcs put, and the
> criticisms it received in the past (mostly: slowness and lack of
> progress report, see darcs-users archives of December 2008, eg
Uh-oh, you're getting sucked in! A new Darcs hacker is born?
> Using init+push rather than get is inefficient because with get, the
> pristine tree is copied once for all, while with init+push it is built
> on-the-fly for each patch, is that right?
> Implementing put with get for local copies is easy, but via ssh (the
> typical use of put), that's a problem.
> A solution, explained by Petr at
> http://email@example.com/msg11858.html ,
> would be:
> ssh -R 2000:localhost:22 somewhere.else
> SSH_PORT=2000 darcs get localhost:some/repo
> 1) scp-ing a tarball of the local _darcs, untarring it and
> darcs-getting it. (darcs-reverting it would work but would leave all
> _darcs/prefs/ files like mots, email...).
> Seems dirty, but this is what put does: deploying a repository on a
> remote server.
This is what http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1066 recommends for what it's
> I'm more in favor of Option 1), especially since there is currently
> work by Alexey on darcs optimize --http. Maybe we could use the same
> code for darcs-getting the contents of a tarball?
> Once we can write the following, the rest will flow:
> $ darcs get repo_name.tar.bz2 # contains only the _darcs directory
Not sure I understood this (but I'm in skim-and-triage mode right now,
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the darcs-users