You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> on 2003/11/12 20:31:26 UTC
Re: svn commit: rev 7695 - in trunk: doc/book subversion/include
subversion/libsvn_fs subversion/libsvn_repos subversion/svnadmin
subversion/tests/libsvn_fs
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 22:57, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > For example, if deltify r1000 requires creating of a fulltext of r999,
> > then you'd want to do 1000 *before* deltifying 999.
>
> Yeah, I guess sometimes giving the user the flexibility just doesn't
> pay off in the end.
I think right now correctness demands that we deltify revisions in
increasing order, even though that requires doing a lot of redundant
work. If we want to optimize deltfying multiple revisions, I think that
requires careful design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: rev 7695 - in trunk: doc/book subversion/include subversion/libsvn_fs subversion/libsvn_repos subversion/svnadmin subversion/tests/libsvn_fs
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 22:57, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > > For example, if deltify r1000 requires creating of a fulltext of r999,
> > > then you'd want to do 1000 *before* deltifying 999.
> >
> > Yeah, I guess sometimes giving the user the flexibility just doesn't
> > pay off in the end.
>
> I think right now correctness demands that we deltify revisions in
> increasing order, even though that requires doing a lot of redundant
> work. If we want to optimize deltfying multiple revisions, I think that
> requires careful design.
Got some spare cycles to fix this svnadmin code? I'm buried in other
tasks. Pretty please?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: rev 7695 - in trunk: doc/book subversion/include subversion/libsvn_fs subversion/libsvn_repos subversion/svnadmin subversion/tests/libsvn_fs
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > For example, if deltify r1000 requires creating of a fulltext of r999,
> > > then you'd want to do 1000 *before* deltifying 999.
> >
> > Yeah, I guess sometimes giving the user the flexibility just doesn't
> > pay off in the end.
>
> I think right now correctness demands that we deltify revisions in
> increasing order, even though that requires doing a lot of redundant
> work. If we want to optimize deltfying multiple revisions, I think that
> requires careful design.
Why would it be a matter of correctness? A deltification should work
no matter what form the base text -- or target, for that matter -- is
stored in before the deltification.
It may be that it does nothing, if (say) the target is already
deltified. Or maybe it fully undeltifies the target and then
redeltifies, which is an awful lot of work... But correctness??
You're scaring me :-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org