Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2013-01-23 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2012-06-20 02:48:23 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-06-19 19:41:51 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? > > Yes, the binary svndiff chunks are different and have the declared > size. But why is 1.6.17 better than 1.7.5? In fact,

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-26 Thread Hyrum K Wright
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 23.06.2012 00:23, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> Thanks for the explanations. >> >> On 2012-06-22 00:18:50 +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> xdelta uses fixed-size 100kByte deltification windows. >>> The Changelog file in question is >400k, i.e.

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-23 Thread Branko Čibej
On 23.06.2012 00:23, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Thanks for the explanations. > > On 2012-06-22 00:18:50 +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> xdelta uses fixed-size 100kByte deltification windows. >> The Changelog file in question is >400k, i.e. 4+ windows. >> You insert about 2k at the beginning of the f

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-22 Thread Vincent Lefevre
Thanks for the explanations. On 2012-06-22 00:18:50 +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > xdelta uses fixed-size 100kByte deltification windows. > The Changelog file in question is >400k, i.e. 4+ windows. > You insert about 2k at the beginning of the file, moving > the older parts by a similar distance.

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-21 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-06-20 02:48:23 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-06-19 19:41:51 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? Yes, the binary svndiff chunks are different and have the declared size. But why is 1.6.17 better than 1.

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-21 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2012-06-20 02:48:23 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-06-19 19:41:51 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? > > Yes, the binary svndiff chunks are different and have the declared > size. But why is 1.6.17 better than 1.7.5? And the p

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-19 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2012-06-19 19:41:51 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? Yes, the binary svndiff chunks are different and have the declared size. But why is 1.6.17 better than 1.7.5? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible val

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

2012-06-19 Thread Daniel Shahaf
I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? Otherwise, one of the two dumpfiles should fail to load. Vincent Lefevre wrote on Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 18:04:28 +0200: > After comparing two dumps of the same repository, one obtained > with Subversion 1.6.17 and one obtained with 1.7.5