On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marcus, > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Aug 1, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> since years marcus is telling that MC storing ancestor information is >>> doomed but we do not have something to really replace it. >>> >> >> This is yet another thing. >> >> Monticello keep all history data of all package in image, this is not a >> cache. When you delete it, your package loses >> it's history and you can not merge anymore. >> >> MCVersionInfo allInstances do: [ :each | each instVarNamed: 'ancestors' put: >> nil ]. > > When I looked at this I noticed that there was lots of duplicate > entries in the ancestry list. I *think* this happens on merge. I > think one ends up with each of the ancestries of the merged packages > after a merge, i.e. when merging near the head one effectively doubles > the ancestry. I think Monticello should unique the ancestry, either > after a merge, or better still, before saving. This I think will > shrink the space taken by ancestry significantly. > > I have some code handy if you'd like, but its not a hard thing to do. Can you send it so that we have a look? Tx > >> >> We did that on Pharo2 release and it saved 8MB (nearly a third of the image). >> >> Marcus > > > > -- > best, > Eliot >
