newformat format change

[John A Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John A Meinel wrote:
> 
>>>The reason the revision XML isn't very weave friendly, is mostly because
>>> it isn't line based, but you could easily make it that way.
> 
> 
> It's also because most of the information about a revision is unique to
> that revision.  Weave compression most effective when many lines don't
> change, but only committer looks like it would be somewhat stable.
> Maybe message, if it's frequently blank.
> 
> So when you gzip a tar, (or, I expect, a weave) you exploit repetition
> of strings like '<parents>' or 'WorkingTree' across revisions.
> 
> Aaron

Sure, but he was mentioning using RFC822, which is only friendlier for 
weaves because it is line based.
I was simply saying that we could switch the revision entries to be line 
based, and get the same effect that switching to RFC822 would be.

But you are completely right, the real problem is that nothing is 
common, except the keywords and maybe committer.

And gzip would probably do a good job with the fact that the revision_id 
is repeated for the inventory_id, and that the email address is used 
repeatedly. Though the v5 revision XML doesn't repeat the revision_id.

John
=:->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050930/f82878c2/attachment.pgp