From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Are binary xdeltas only used if you use git-gc? Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:36:14 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3ai8tgq9.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <200810311726.57122.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thanassis Tsiodras , Matthieu Moy , Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 04 02:38:10 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KxArw-0004Ax-R7 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:38:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752163AbYKDBge (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751036AbYKDBgd (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:33 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:64431 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbYKDBgd (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0858932CC; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-211.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AED48932CB; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:18:37 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 021FB2DC-AA11-11DD-A5A2-4F5276724C3F-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > Right. Those thin packs were designed for different versions of the > same file in mind, not different files with almost the same content. > This could possibly be improved at some point... Wouldn't using a large --window help by going across name-hash boundaries?