"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > YMMV, but in my experience (a) communication of the patches per se is > only an issue the first time I set up a branch, after that local > branches are cheap (though still way expensive compared to git or > Mercurial)
Even though you're using hard-linking with ~/.darcs/cache ? What do hg and git do differently that makes their local branching cheaper? Simply because it's done within a single repo, and therefore you only ever have one copy of the working tree? > and remote pulls are normally a tiny fraction of the repo---almost all > the time for a pull (which can be substantial) is spent in handling > the patch applications, not in transmitting data, (b) a lot of my > communication is one-to-one (eg, pushes are always to a central repo, > and many pulls are between me and one coworker), and My anecdotal experience seems to agree with you: pulls are far more CPU bound than I/O bound. > But for the fountain code to have much impact on a day-to-day basis, > you'd need to ensure that several fairly up-to-date mirrors are > available all the time. Somebody has to admin those hosts and > maintain those mirrors. The buildbots already do most of this; is it feasible to have them export their local mirrors of the darcs repository? _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
