On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:22:57 -0400, David Roundy wrote: > I'm pushing this patch set now, in spite of its low quality.
Thanks! (no comments on the quality) > Performance patches are *always* low priority, and should therefore > should only be made when they are both certain to be correct and > have been tested to actually improve performace. This patch set > violates both principles. Again, this was my mistake. That is, I presented this patch bundle as a performance patch, when in fact, it is nothing more than an API-modernisation patch (with the apparant cost of some regressions, more data later). This benefits of this patch, performance regressions notwithstanding, is that it will make the darcs code more familiar and approachable to the wider community. This will pay off in the long run! Now that we have almost a fire-and-forget mechanism for generating performance numbers, we can knuckle down and figure out ways to catch up. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
