Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an (optional, since expensive) test for >2g clones
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Mar 5, 2009, 16:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903051754260.6524@intel-tinevez-2-302>
- In-Reply-To
- <20090305164153.GD4213@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Hi,
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Jeff King wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 05:05:09PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > + (while test $i -le $blobcount
> > + do
> > + printf "Generating blob $i/$blobcount\r" >&2 &&
> > + printf "blob\nmark :$i\ndata $blobsize\n" &&
> > + #test-genrandom $i $blobsize &&
> > + printf "%-${blobsize}s" $i &&
>
> Leftover cruft using genrandom? (I'm guessing you tried random at first
> to avoid compression, but I think your pack.compression=0 technique is
> more sensible).Actually, I left it in on purpose. Yes, it happens to work right now, as the packs are built with 0 compression and with 0 deltification.
However, there might be a day when we cannot guarantee anymore that a single number padded with spaces to a certain width really makes the pack grow by that many bytes. Then we would need something like test-genrandom (which is substantially slower, though).
Interesting random note: it took me quite a while to figure out that both pack.compression and pack.depth need to be set to 0. In hindsight, it is obvious, but that does not really help the time I lost due to Windows' slowness.
Ciao, Dscho