Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: cscvs--experimental--1.1 nearing doneness; call for testers

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 02:10:28PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 08:48:37PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > After it finishes please let us know all the sizes of archive (compared
> > to 450M of _uncompressed_ bkcvs) and the time tla takes for every
> 
> I already have some stats for you.  You might be aware that I have a Linux
> archive in Arch already over at http://arch.debian.org/.  This archive
> contains every released version of Linux on both the stable and development
> trees since 0.01 and many pre and testing versions as well.  The entire size
> of that archive, including several cached revisions, is 450MB.  Exclusive of
> cached revisions, it is around 250MB.

that's a very nice project.

With so few patches (I mean compared to the 13000 ones in bkcvs), the
current arch format is optimal for it, it will compress great, each
patchset is several mbytes large (not a few kbytes).

For this kind of archive a feature like superpatchsets would be useless,
the superpatchsets here matches the regular patchsets because of their
big size.

> When I get the cscvs thing to work, I intend to replace my 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6
> trees with the cscvs ones.

very cool. I seen you also wrote a very nice howto.

Did you setup the repository using "explicit + untagged-source junk"? In
my understanding this should be the preferred setup for most kernel
developers to provide strict commits and to be able to commit w/o having
to delete the temporary autogenerated files first.

> I have not run a checkin on this tree since Tom added the inode cache to
> tla, so I don't have complete stats for you yet.  I'll let you know once
> cscvs is ready.

thanks! It'll be very interesting.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/