[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:28:35 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

>> Another point is that we have seen zero (`0') evidence that any
>> significant saving would arrive, under any real-world usage 
>> conditions, from the use of binary deltas.

> If you use binary deltas for text files, too, it's likely that you
> won't need revision libraries anymore because constructing revisions
> from the archive itself would be fast enough.  (Yes, I know your
> arguments why it can't be done.)

Wait!  Are you saying that patch application is currently slow because
`patch' is slow?  I.e. that the majority of the time spent applying patches
is spent in `patch'?
Is patch really so slow, even when doing exact patching?  Why?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]