Something changed shrink-revlog for the worse
Greg Ward
greg at gerg.ca
Mon Jan 11 20:07:51 CST 2010
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Greg Ward <greg at gerg.ca> wrote:
> Correct: my toposort is completely driven by topology, not revision
> order. That's deliberate and it's a big win in my case.
Forgot to mention: the idea that inspired my reverse DFS (or whatever
we call it) algorithm was, "How would the manifest look if Mercurial
actually had parent deltas today?" Presumably revlog would compute
each delta relative to parentrevs(rev)[0], not to rev-1. Obviously
the order of manifests would be different, but I think my algorithm
captures the deltas that would be written by a parent-delta revlog.
Or at least that was the idea. For me it's enough that 1) it's
correct and 2) it gives me a 35 MB manifest. After that, everything
else is secondary. (Unless someone comes up with an algorithm that
gives me a 20 MB manifest, in which case I will happily abandon ship
and latch onto their great idea.)
Greg
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list