On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:41:54AM -0500, David Roundy wrote: > The catch is that then we'd have to implement a smart server to keep users > from having to download the entire history with each update. That's not a > fundamentally hard issue, but it would definitely degrade darcs' ease of > use, besides putting additional load on the server. So if something like > this were implemented, I think it would definitely have to be as an > optional format. > > Also, we couldn't actually store the data in CVS/SCCS format, since in > darcs a patch to a single file isn't uniquely determined by two states of > that file. But storing separately the patches relevant to different files > would definitely be an optimization worth considering.
What about just a cache file that records, for each "file" which patches affect it. Now that I think about it, this is a little tricky, since I'm not sure what that file would be called. It would be easy to do for filenames in the current version. Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
