Experience upgrading to 1.9

[Martin Albisetti]

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM, John Arbash Meinel
<john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

FWIW, this isn't the branches on my laptop, but the branches used in
my office my designers, programmers, etc.


>> - Most operations seem faster, but I don't have any hard numbers yet
>
> Again, packing helps a lot here. The 1.9 format is generally about
> *remote* performance. It may or may not be much faster for local
> performance. (It has to decompress index content rather than just
> reading text, but that can be beneficial when things have not been paged
> in yet by the OS because less needs to be paged in. Once in mem, though,
> raw text is faster.)

Further usage revealed that we can now branch big branches with
binaries (~2-3gb) that we couldn't before without running into a
memory traceback, and had to CP (push/pull was ok, initial branch was
the problem).
So the gains seem to be pretty significant.


>> - Some of the branches are over 2 years old, and have gone through
>> quite a few upgrades and operating systems. I found that some of them
>> had files that blew up in bzr because of encoding issues on the
>> filenames, so I made a dirty hack to ignore them so I could do the
>> mass-upgrade. I haven't followed up on what's causing the encoding
>> problem, but I do know that the files are on the working tree, that
>> most of them where committed at some point and now ignored, and that
>> they have letters with accents.
>
> Do you happen to be on Mac? My first guess would be a change in the
> normalization logic. (Whether we allow/disallow/auto-convert/etc Unicode
> normalization following different rules.) Mac OS forces filenames to
> conform to their normalization (NFD), which is generally not like the
> default of other systems (NFC). NFD uses combining chars, so å on Mac is
> actually 2 characters, a plain 'a' and then a 'circle on top'.

We have Mac, Linux and Windows. From what I can guess, those filenames
where added through Windows.


-- 
Martin