On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Trent W. Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 06:35:53PM +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote: >>>> Performance patches are *always* low priority, and should therefore >>>> should only be made when they are both certain to be correct >>> >>> Please could you clarify what you mean by that? Much optimisation >>> work will never be "certain to be correct". For example, the darcs >>> annotate cache work will inevitably be too complicated to satisfy >>> that criterion. Even the recent series of patches I submitted, which >>> were all quite "local" in some sense, still needed some testing to >>> shake out bugs, and there's certainly no absolute guarantee that >>> there are none left. >> >> My first and absolute priority is to make darcs as bug-free as >> possible. I understand that changes are necessary, and that any >> change may introduce a bug, and therefore every change needs to be >> carefully considered, what it's benefits are versus its risks. > > Do user complaints like "darcs is too slow and we are switching to > git/hg" constitute bug reports? ;-)
Most users who complain about darcs' speed complain about its scaling, or at least problems for which it scales poorly. A constant factor speed increase isn't going to keep them in the fold. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
