Hi Guillaume, On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:06:42 +0200, Guillaume Hoffmann wrote: > this darcs init x problem made me have a look at darcs put, and the > criticisms it received in the past (mostly: slowness and lack of > progress report, see darcs-users archives of December 2008, eg > http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-December/016452.html > ).
Uh-oh, you're getting sucked in! A new Darcs hacker is born? > Using init+push rather than get is inefficient because with get, the > pristine tree is copied once for all, while with init+push it is built > on-the-fly for each patch, is that right? > > Implementing put with get for local copies is easy, but via ssh (the > typical use of put), that's a problem. > A solution, explained by Petr at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg11858.html , > would be: > > ssh -R 2000:localhost:22 somewhere.else > SSH_PORT=2000 darcs get localhost:some/repo > 1) scp-ing a tarball of the local _darcs, untarring it and > darcs-getting it. (darcs-reverting it would work but would leave all > _darcs/prefs/ files like mots, email...). > Seems dirty, but this is what put does: deploying a repository on a > remote server. This is what http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1066 recommends for what it's worth > I'm more in favor of Option 1), especially since there is currently > work by Alexey on darcs optimize --http. Maybe we could use the same > code for darcs-getting the contents of a tarball? > Once we can write the following, the rest will flow: > > $ darcs get repo_name.tar.bz2 # contains only the _darcs directory Not sure I understood this (but I'm in skim-and-triage mode right now, sorry!) -- 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
