On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 15:38:16 +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote: > > So, this regression is much worse than I had initially realized. I guess > > I'll make a new bug ticket for this regression and cite some of this. > > I heard a rumour that this was to prevent you recording a patch that you > then couldn't work with, i.e. by making the record operation as bloatful > as apply/amend/whatever.
No. I remember a conversation with David where he mentioned that Darcs also has some performance regressions due to special case optimisations being removed, which is probably for the better anyway (simpler is simpler). I think that corresponds to his comment http://bugs.darcs.net/msg4077 | Just to clarify here. We did at one time support lazy operation in record (the | key was that you had to use --all, or specify 'a' at the beginning of the | interactive prompt), and it's possible to do so. However, somewhere along the | way this feature broke, and I'm just as glad that it did. I don't like the idea | of darcs creating patches that it can't hold in memory, as it *very* severely | limits what you can do with them, and I'd rather our users don't get stuck in a | situation where darcs has created a patch so big that it can't lift it. So it wasn't done deliberately, but was a consequence of refactoring and tidying. This one of the problems with the Darcs 2 transition: a lot of times, we sacrificed faster to get cleaner/safer and I think this was one of the cases. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpZHeVClz70t.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
