Received: from spf1.us4.outblaze.com (spf1.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.23]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iB62Hcqj006161 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:17:39 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf1.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9806F539E6 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:17:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cb8bK-0004fX-Oh for migo@homemail.com; Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:27:46 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cb8at-0004cr-PX for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:27:19 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cb8at-0004cT-1t for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:27:19 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cb8as-0004bu-Ps for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:27:18 -0500 Received: from [129.255.60.186] (helo=ct.radiology.uiowa.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cb8Ql-0003Mj-Jc for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:16:51 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.11] (12-217-241-0.client.mchsi.com [12.217.241.0]) by ct.radiology.uiowa.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iB62Ge300643; Sun, 5 Dec 2004 20:16:40 -0600 Message-ID: <41B3C107.5060908@arbash-meinel.com> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:16:39 -0600 From: John A Meinel User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cameron Patrick Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq> <26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net> <20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk> <20041206015353.GA7353@aku> <20041206020747.GA6983@patrick.wattle.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20041206020747.GA6983@patrick.wattle.id.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0701248359==" Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 3092 Lines: 90 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --===============0701248359== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig27A453061BFDE4B812352C55" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig27A453061BFDE4B812352C55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cameron Patrick wrote: > Andre Kuehne wrote: > > >>>Arch already has the only kind of binary diff that is possible. >> >>You consider "putting the original file and its replacement side by side" >>a binary diff? > > > For arch's purposes, it is isomorphic to the kind of "binary diff" > that subversion uses (and for that matter, to every conceivable type > of diff algorithm). It is rarely the most the disc space efficient way > of storing change but any changes to make arch use e.g. xdelta would > merely be an implementation detail and not affect the user experience > at all (except insofar as download times and archive storage space > would be decreased). > > Cameron > It is a binary diff. But it isn't the "efficient binary diff" that is touted for SVN. As far as xdelta being "merely an implementation detail" that isn't quite true. In the arch sense, xdelta/vdelta/whatever needs to know that it is patching the exact same file. So you need to have the "pre" to compare against. Now xdelta might store the md5sum or something like that of the previous file, and refuse to patch a different file. But one thing you don't want is to replay someone else's patch-42 and get a completely corrupted binary file. You would much prefer a conflict. And if you get a conflict, for a binary file you'd probably prefer a full copy of the original as the reject (which I believe is what tla does now.) Because a binary delta is relatively useless to humans. It might be nicer if arch could store the pre and then the xdelta instead of storing both. Or maybe the post and an xdelta to go backwards. But for people asking the question "does arch support binary diff like SVN" they want us to store *only* the xdelta. John =:-> --------------enig27A453061BFDE4B812352C55 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBs8EHJdeBCYSNAAMRAr9WAKDV5gUWuaByfV4YQH3sHZVJdic2gwCffbNw ZPvNcNanE5VJN3AXIgnPq5M= =gg+N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig27A453061BFDE4B812352C55-- --===============0701248359== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/ --===============0701248359==--