please check out weave-format branch

John A Meinel john at
Fri Sep 23 18:53:45 BST 2005

Martin Pool wrote:
> Hi,
> My branch using the weave format is just about ready for adoption.  If
> you would like a copy you can either pull or rsync from
>, or get this tarball:
> As test data, a copy of the bzr history converted to weaves is here:
> (The uncompressed history size shrunk from 101MB to 6.8MB).
> Existing branches can be converted using the 'tools/'
> script (which should be changed to run from the upgrade command.)
> This upgrades a branch in place; make a copy first.
> --
> Martin

Another small point as I get deeper into the code.
Why do you write out the revision xml as uncompressed?

I guess in my testing, you don't save a lot of space, since the files
are small. --apparent-size is 660k vs 755k, but because of filesystem
blocks, du -ksh reports 6.3M versus 6.2M.

I don't really have any problem with them being uncompressed, it's
actually probably better in the long run, I was just curious what
motivated you to change. (Or at the very least I wanted people to be
aware of the change).
It would also affect my split-storage branch, since my
CompressedTextStore only stored texts as compressed (we could certainly
have a FullTextStore, or upgrade CompressedText to do both, I just
didn't like the try:except: ENOENT..., it seemed hackish)

But the above du does raise an interesting issue. That we are losing
about 10x disk space because of a bunch of very small files. It isn't a
lot of space, and I don't know if people will really care, but I thought
I would mention it.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list