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. > Ahh… that explains why it wastes so much memory. > I have some code handy if you'd like, but its not a hard thing to do. > If you have it I would be interested… I have added the information to https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/2711 Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
