[darcs-users] should you upgrade to darcs-2 format? hashed may be good enough

[Eric Kow]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:44:21 -0500, Kari Hoijarvi wrote:
> All these are create with 1.0.9 and used with darcs 2.3.1 I have used  
> darcs-2 format with my new repos, but I have not upgraded these to  
> paranoid fear of exposing bugs. My work depends on these.
>
> I'm using these both locally and over the network. Locally the  
> performance is fine, over the network acceptable.

Ah! a chance to wheel out the brand new FAQ entry about upgrading:

  http://wiki.darcs.net/FAQ#should-i-convert-my-repository-to-the-darcs-2-format

In case you're already 100% up to speed on the hashed/darcs-2
distinction (it's taken us a while to communicate this effectively),
then I hope this helps some other darcs users :-)

-- 
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100330/06c6a162/attachment.pgp>