Message-ID: <jwv8y8bp45g.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user@gnu.org>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
References: <20041205000613.PNEI7152.lakermmtao09.cox.net@nonerjsnum1tkq>
	<26E1F314-4654-11D9-AD55-000A957659CC@spy.net>
	<20041205023828.GA11443@suffields.me.uk>
	<87pt1o9kvb.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
	<200412061850.iB6IoWmS036469@xl2.seyza.com>
	<87brd7428y.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:28:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87brd7428y.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> (Florian Weimer's message of
	"Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:10:05 +0100")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Arch Versus CVS Versus Subversoin
Precedence: list
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: 887
Lines: 25
>> Another point is that we have seen zero (`0') evidence that any
>> significant saving would arrive, under any real-world usage 
>> conditions, from the use of binary deltas.

> If you use binary deltas for text files, too, it's likely that you
> won't need revision libraries anymore because constructing revisions
> from the archive itself would be fast enough.  (Yes, I know your
> arguments why it can't be done.)

Wait!  Are you saying that patch application is currently slow because
`patch' is slow?  I.e. that the majority of the time spent applying patches
is spent in `patch'?
Is patch really so slow, even when doing exact patching?  Why?


        Stefan


_______________________________________________
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/