From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:58:23 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add an (optional, since expensive) test for >2g clones
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:

> 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