My guess is that you will be better off generating a non-compressed PDF to reduce repository bloat, if you think that you will be changing it a lot, because Fossil can do better diff compression that way. The downside would be that the PDFs will be bigger (of course).
Bill On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Tomek Kott <tkott.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I think the answer to that is "it depends". For example do you care > about having a small repository? Are you worried about corruption? For me, > I wouldn't think twice about it. Even a thousand commits, each with their > own pdf of even 1MB is still only 1GB. Unless these are big PDF's, I > wouldn't worry about it too much. > > Then again, I have no direct experience in this regard. I've used fossil > for LabView programming, the files for which are binary and I don't think > very compressible. But even 866 files taking up 40 MB, with about 100 > commits, some of which change a large minority of files, the fossil repo is > still only 400 MB. I wouldn't call that bloated, but YMMV. > > Tomek > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Guilherme P. de Freitas < > guilhe...@gpfreitas.com> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Thanks for your answers, but the question is: won't that bloat the >> repository too much? >> >> -- >> Guilherme P. de Freitas >> http://www.gpfreitas.com >> _______________________________________________ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
