Any benefit to upgrading format locally only?

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Russ Brown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We generally use bound checkouts almost exclusively. Currently we are
> using pack-0.92 formats both locally and on the server, and need to keep
> pack-0.92 on the server for reasons of compatibility with some older
> clients that we have on servers.
> 
> My question is, would there be any benefit (performance, space) to
> upgrading to a newer format (1.6 or 1.9) locally only on clients that
> support a newer format?
> 
> Conversely, would it cause any problems when communicating with the
> server (specifically, could the format upgrade 'bleed' onto the server
> at all, or would it remain local)?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

There is a minimal benefit locally. It is primarily an improvement for
remote performance. It is a little bit smaller, and faster to lookup a
single key.

There is little chance for the repository format to "bleed" as long as
you are continuing to share the same remote repository.

What could "bleed" is the branch format. 1.6 was a new branch format
(the only change was that it sets an internal flag allowing the branch
to stack). However, you can use a 1.9 format repository and a
"pack-0.92" format branch. You just get "unknown" from 'bzr info'.

So in summary, there is a small benefit, but probably not worth worrying
about until you can upgrade the shared repo.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmcHHMACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMfPQCgsElMFadrg6gFsdecM0iDhcpf
fYIAn13X5UpCPioAPg0YnmQa3IibR4ym
=YCXd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----