Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > Eric Kow <[email protected]> added the comment: > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:00:11 +0000, Jason Dagit wrote: >> Would you be opposed to a repository created like this: >> a) download linux kernel tarball >> b) untar it >> c) darcs init in kernel source >> d) darcs add --recursive . > > I would not be opposed (rather the contrary), but if it gets horrible in I am opposed, however. It is something darcs-benchmark was not designed for, and most benchmarks would be completely meaningless in such a repo. I would concede if darcs-benchmark was extended with "non-repo" benchmarks (that would create their own repository, e.g.) -- touching a few thousand files in a couple directories programatically is sure simpler than tarring up such a huge code base. Even if you wanted to add content to the files, it wouldn't be anything really complex. Even if you insist on providing a tarball, this repository would need specific benchmarks, different from other repositories, benchmarks that wouldn't make much sense in the others. We currently have no way to say that (although it can be certainly done).
(I still think synthetic repositories would work better here.) Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
