[Top][All Lists]

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

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision lib

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 23:23:44 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Miles Bader wrote:

> Aaron Bentley <address@hidden> writes:
>>>Yeah, and let's add the compress-patch-log stuff to remove some the
>>>temptation to delete them...
>>Compressing the patchlogs will remove the info I need.  (I need the 
>>"Continuation-of:" header)
>>Unless you mean something other than what's previously been discussed.
> What I'm referring to _was_ previously discussed on this list, and
> didn't involve removing any information, merely changing its form.

Oh, sorry.  There was some discussion of replacing old patchlogs with
list of which ones were present, e.g.


I thought that was what you were talking about.

Now I see what you were talking about.  And especially given the
repetitive nature of tla patchlogs, I can imagine compression would do

Quick testing on tla patchlogs;

tla directory: 4.4 M, tla.tar.gz: 203 k


> If you're looking at the raw patch-log files instead of using tla
> commands, you'd probably need to change your code to deal with the
> situation.

No, I'm using cat-log.  As long as its behaviour is the same, that's
fine.  But it will be quite slow if it has to untar the file for each
separate log body.

Linux needs a file-compression format that supports random access to
specific files.


reply via email to

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