sven.panne:
> On Monday 02 April 2007 10:07, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Since we're all demonstrating our local darcs hacks, here's mine: I use
> > HTTP for get/pull, and I have a script (attached) that grovels in
> > _darcs/prefs/repos to find the right place to push to and then pushes over
> > SSH.
On Monday 02 April 2007 10:07, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Since we're all demonstrating our local darcs hacks, here's mine: I use
> HTTP for get/pull, and I have a script (attached) that grovels in
> _darcs/prefs/repos to find the right place to push to and then pushes over
> SSH.
So what I seem to rea
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:23:32PM +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
When getting a repo via HTTP, darcs seems to be *much* faster than via SSH.
Here as an example the cpphs repo, 3.7 patches per second vs. 0.7 patches per
second (almost unusable for large/old repos):
5. :-( Is there
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:23:32PM +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
>
> When getting a repo via HTTP, darcs seems to be *much* faster than via SSH.
> Here as an example the cpphs repo, 3.7 patches per second vs. 0.7 patches per
> second (almost unusable for large/old repos):
>
> 5. :-( Is there a misco
On Sunday 01 April 2007 13:38, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
> Are you using master/slave connections in ssh? This will let you reuse a
> single control connection in ssh, avoiding the need to reauthenticate to
> get each patch (and there's 2 or 3 of these per patch). [...]
I don't think so: darcs u
Hi Sven,
When getting a repo via HTTP, darcs seems to be *much* faster than via SSH.
Here as an example the cpphs repo, 3.7 patches per second vs. 0.7 patches per
second (almost unusable for large/old repos):
The difference is massive, I almost think that 5 times faster is an
understatement. I
sven.panne:
> [ Well, not exactly a GHC problem, but I think that the mailing list fits,
> anyway. ]
>
> When getting a repo via HTTP, darcs seems to be *much* faster than via SSH.
> Here as an example the cpphs repo, 3.7 patches per second vs. 0.7 patches per
> second (almost unusable for larg
[ Well, not exactly a GHC problem, but I think that the mailing list fits,
anyway. ]
When getting a repo via HTTP, darcs seems to be *much* faster than via SSH.
Here as an example the cpphs repo, 3.7 patches per second vs. 0.7 patches per
second (almost unusable for large/old repos):
-
