From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS6315 166.70.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98AC31F85D; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1fdMrH-00008c-C8; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:41:11 -0600 Received: from [97.119.167.31] (helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1fdMrF-00019h-MX; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:41:11 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Eric Wong , meta@public-inbox.org References: <87k1q1bky6.fsf@xmission.com> <20180711211825.GC25896@puremoods> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:41:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180711211825.GC25896@puremoods> (Konstantin Ryabitsev's message of "Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:18:25 -0400") Message-ID: <87a7qxbgcu.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1fdMrF-00019h-MX;;;mid=<87a7qxbgcu.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.167.31;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+BUuUPJ+9fiNGxnP77m1UdlI/aFwb3mZM= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.167.31 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: Q: V2 format X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) List-Id: Konstantin Ryabitsev writes: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:01:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Names. Is there a good reason not to use message numbers as the names >> in the git repositories? (Other than the cost to change the code?) That >> would remove the need for treat the sqlite msgmap database as precious, >> and it would make it easier to recover if an nntp server goes away. In >> V2 format the git mailing list git repository is only about 2M larger if >> each message has it's msg number as it's name. Plus the git log >> is easier to read as messages are all + or -. > > As in, instead of changes happening to the same file "m", the message is > saved into a new file and the old file deleted in each commit? Yes. I believe from a git object perspective it is exactly the same. 1 tree object per commit with exactly one file in it. The only difference is that the files have different names. Eric