On Wednesday 03 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> As you may remember we had a problem before the release of Lenny with
> the l10n-sync script running wild and creating an insanely large Danish
> PO file for sublevel 4.
> This was eventually corrected, but the commits increasing the size of
> that da.p
On Friday 05 June 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > As a result of the cleanup the 'svnadmin dump' file shrinks by more
> > than 2GB (!) and the repository database shrinks from 2.4GB to 1.7GB.
>
> A direct dump and load gives the following:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> As a result of the cleanup the 'svnadmin dump' file shrinks by more than
> 2GB (!) and the repository database shrinks from 2.4GB to 1.7GB.
A direct dump and load gives the following:
| wa...@alioth:~$ du -s /svn/d-i/db
| 2448288 /svn
On Thursday 04 June 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > A tag is a copy, but the files are not actually copied. So if I
> > change the file in trunk in a revision before the tag, the tagged
> > version of the file will automatically change as well.
>
> You can change the file along with the copy operati
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> As you may remember we had a problem before the release of Lenny with the
> l10n-sync script running wild and creating an insanely large Danish PO
> file for sublevel 4.
I can't comment deeply on your proposal, but I'd like to thank you for
taking care t
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:28:06AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > The way my cleanup works is that I remove all changes to the affected
> > > files made between revisions 55934 and 57133 (
On Thursday 04 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Working copies with references to this revisions gets invalidated.
>
> OK. I'll test that and if it is a problem we'll have to warn about it.
> I don't think it's a huge problem if such users would have
On Thursday 04 June 2009, peter green wrote:
> > 3) The relevant versions are now no longer available anywhere [2]:
> > they are no longer in the archive and we don't have a snapshot.d.n
> > for that period.
>
> I don't think this statement is correct. snapshot.debian.net seems to
> have all dates
3) The relevant versions are now no longer available anywhere [2]: they
are no longer in the archive and we don't have a snapshot.d.n for that
period.
I don't think this statement is correct. snapshot.debian.net seems to
have all dates up to and including 2009/03/28, that date is after th
Thanks a lot for the reply, Bastian.
On Thursday 04 June 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > The way my cleanup works is that I remove all changes to the affected
> > files made between revisions 55934 and 57133 (both inclusive).
> > As a res
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:42:39PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> The way my cleanup works is that I remove all changes to the affected
> files made between revisions 55934 and 57133 (both inclusive).
> As a result of the cleanup the 'svnadmin dump' file shrinks by more than
> 2GB (!) and the reposito
As you may remember we had a problem before the release of Lenny with the
l10n-sync script running wild and creating an insanely large Danish PO
file for sublevel 4.
This was eventually corrected, but the commits increasing the size of that
da.po master file to eventually 250MB (and the same aga
12 matches
Mail list logo
