On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
> fossil. The original CVS tree consist of 957 separate files totalling
> 322,265,419 bytes. The first cut of the fossil repository is
> 33,091,584 bytes and after clo
On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Andreas Kupries wrote:
>>
>> I have a 193-line TCL script that uses both CVSTrac and CVS data to
>> do
correction: 206-line TCL script.
>> the conversion. The script is not general-purpose, but is sufficient
>> for SQLite.
>
> Ok. CVSTrac ... Let me guess, that p
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Andreas Kupries wrote:
>
>> D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
>>> efficient than CVS.
>>>
>>> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
>>> fossil.
>> An
On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Andreas Kupries wrote:
> D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
>> efficient than CVS.
>>
>> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
>> fossil.
>
> And some more curiosity ...
>
>
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Andreas Kupries wrote:
>
>> D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>>> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
>>> efficient than CVS.
>>> and after cloning (which results in better delta
>>> compression)
>> How does this work ?
>
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
> efficient than CVS.
>
> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
> fossil.
And some more curiosity ...
What tool chain was/is used to perform this conversion ?
On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Andreas Kupries wrote:
> D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
>> efficient than CVS.
>
>> and after cloning (which results in better delta
>> compression)
>
> How does this work ?
> I.e., what does the cloning
D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
> efficient than CVS.
> and after cloning (which results in better delta
> compression)
How does this work ?
I.e., what does the cloning do which results in the better deltas ?
Andreas.
_
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:29 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> > If sqlite3 (or any other large project, for that matter) migrates to
> > fossil, i would love to see a post-mortem analysis. :)
>
> This is a rebirth, not a death!
Even better: a pos
On Aug 11, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM, D. Richard Hipp
> wrote:
> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
> fossil. The original CVS tree consist of 957 separate files totalling
> 322,265,419 bytes. The first cut of t
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:
> We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
> fossil. The original CVS tree consist of 957 separate files totalling
> 322,265,419 bytes. The first cut of the fossil repository is
> 33,091,584 bytes and after clo
An interesting data point: Fossil can be about ten times more space
efficient than CVS.
We are in the process of converting a 10-year-old project from CVS to
fossil. The original CVS tree consist of 957 separate files totalling
322,265,419 bytes. The first cut of the fossil repository is
12 matches
Mail list logo
