I know this sounds weird coming from a LISP developer, but in the interest of leveraging mainstream knowledge I insist that we used either darcs or subversion.
On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 16:23 +0000, Ian Eslick wrote: > Well, its not as if we have that many developers. I think the idea is that > we can have individual developer branchs, a stable branch and a release > branch. Developers update stable when a set of changes are, uh, stable. > That way we can avoid branches getting too far out of date and sidestep the > simultaneous change issue. > > Ian > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Attila Lendvai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:07:30 > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: public_html/darcs in c-l.net elephant > > > What conditions lead to performance issues? Volume of patches or type of > > patches? > > Is it due to haskell or the underlying algorithms? > > in my experience the only problem was when two branches were actively > developed and the same files at the same positions received several > changes. then trying to pull these (nested conflicting) changes into > the other repo ended up in some exponential algorithms instead of > bailing out and marking the conflicts. > > but other then this, those "performance issues" everyone talks about > are non-existent. > > i've asked the darcs guys, and they know about this issue and have > solutions, too, but as far as i know it's not yet implemented. > > hth, > > _______________________________________________ > elephant-devel site list > elephant-devel@common-lisp.net > http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
_______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
