1 |
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 00:35 +0300, Peter Volkov (pva) wrote: |
2 |
> On Вск, 2006-01-01 at 21:35 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
3 |
> > We have currently 10371 ChangeLog files, > 25 MB totally . |
4 |
> > 1365 == 13% with size >= 4096 B, 12 MB totally |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > rsync from "emerge --sync" has "--whole-file" between its options, that |
7 |
> > mean transfer the whole file if changed. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> > 2) "rotate" Changelogs, keeping only the last changes, until a size |
10 |
> > of 4000 or [choose a preferred size here] bytes. |
11 |
> > This would save only about 7Mb of data (max size < 4096). |
12 |
> |
13 |
> ChangeLog is the only source of information on upgrade reasons and IMO |
14 |
> users are interested only in recent information there. Another |
15 |
> suggestion is to combine rotate like and exclude list solutions. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> When ChangeLog size reaches above maximum allowed size echangelog should |
18 |
> create ChangeLog.old file and copy tail of ChangeLog there, in order to |
19 |
> keep ChangeLog size. Then using excludes list one may drop really old |
20 |
> entries in ChangeLog.old, whereas keeping recent information in portage |
21 |
> tree. |
22 |
|
23 |
I could see this working well without removing the information from CVS |
24 |
or the tree. We would then add RSYNC_EXCLUDE on ChangeLog.old instead |
25 |
of ChangeLog. I wouldn't have a problem with this, and it would still |
26 |
be benificial. The only question left to be answered is how much space |
27 |
would actually be saved to make this extra load on CVS worth it. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Chris Gianelloni |
31 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
32 |
x86 Architecture Team |
33 |
Games - Developer |
34 |
Gentoo Linux |