-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Young
* The second is the presence of free pages not yet vacuumed. This is
unused space that IMO ‘unfairly’ lowers the ratio.
I disagree. The unused free pages *should* be charged against you, because
that is space Fossil is taking on your disk, and thus should be compared to
the size of all the versions checked out.
Well, differences of opinion!
Free pages are generated 'behind the scenes', usually without the user's
direct control or consent.
Hypothetically, Fossil could decide to unnecessarily use half my disk for
its own convenience. I *should not* be charged for it because I did not
choose this behavior.
What I should be charged for is my own content in the repo.
Besides, one has to keep vacuuming on very regular basis just to get
accurate reporting. A bit inconvenient, no?
the compression ratio is not meaningful in a useful way when the repo
includes either big un-versioned files
If you have a .zip file at, let us say, 2.1:1 compression ratio because it
mostly contains text files, then you add an MP3 to it, the compression
ratio will drop. Is that also incorrect?
Ah, but a repo is not a zip file, semantically. A zip file keeps files on
'equal' terms, so to speak, and therefore they should all be accounted for
just the same.
It's not a question of file type, file extension, or file size.
A repo on the other hand has the (primary) job of keeping versioned history.
Un-versioned files are there for convenience and they normally do not affect
the progress of the versioned project.
A project should be functional even if we remove the un-versioned files.
So, not same-class citizens, in my book.
Obviously, in the end, it's all a matter of perspective. To me, at least,
compression ratio should relate only to versioned history to be a useful
metric.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
