From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petko Manolov Subject: Re: git and binary files Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:36 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: References: <200801161520.44668.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Jakub Narebski , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 16 17:11:54 2008 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 1JFArn-0001pi-Hr for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:11:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751481AbYAPQK7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:10:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750955AbYAPQK6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:10:58 -0500 Received: from n152-u15.cabletel.bg ([89.253.152.15]:58138 "EHLO zztop.nucleusys.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045AbYAPQK5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:10:57 -0500 Received: from bender.nucleusys.com ([192.168.234.2]) by zztop.nucleusys.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JFAqk-0007aa-BO; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:10:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Petko Manolov wrote: > >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote: >> >>> Petko Manolov wrote: >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this is not the case. These binary blobs are already >>>> compressed and/or encrypted and adding even a few bytes ends up storing >>>> new version in full size. >>> >>> Can't you store them uncompressed? >> >> Not really, but i can convert them into ascii format and store only the delta. > > If you don't have the original uncompressed unencrypted file, what will > converting them to ascii actually give you? Not much. I was blindly hoping that bzip2 may compress such files better, though i haven't tested this hypothesis yet. Will let you know if the result is different from the obvious one. :-) Petko