The XZ patch?

The XZ patch?

[Mark A Rada]

Hi,

I was wondering what the fate of my XZ patch was (I didn't do something
  dumb, did I?). Never got a response after my last submit.



--
Mark A Rada (ferrous26)
marada@uwaterloo.ca

Re: The XZ patch?

[Andreas Ericsson]

Mark A Rada wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering what the fate of my XZ patch was (I didn't do something
>  dumb, did I?). Never got a response after my last submit.
> 

No comments usually meant noone cared enough about the implemented
feature to comment on it. Personally, I'd never use a compression
algorithm that hogs as much memory as XZ does. "Good enough" really
is just that, imo, and bzip2 and gzip are widely available pretty
much everywhere, whereas I've never heard of XZ before.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.

Re: The XZ patch?

[Jakub Narebski]

Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:

> Mark A Rada wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering what the fate of my XZ patch was (I didn't do
> > something dumb, did I?). Never got a response after my last
> > submit.

I'm sorry, I didn't reply to the last version, did I? I liked both
patches
 
> No comments usually meant noone cared enough about the implemented
> feature to comment on it. Personally, I'd never use a compression
> algorithm that hogs as much memory as XZ does. "Good enough" really
> is just that, imo, and bzip2 and gzip are widely available pretty
> much everywhere, whereas I've never heard of XZ before.

Well, there were two patches in last series, and I'd rather liked the
one that decoupled list of _known_ snapshot formats from the list of
snapshot formats projects are _allowed to use_, when project specific
override for 'snapshot' feature is turned on.  So for example one can
allow project specific override (so projects can chose whether to have
snapshot, and what formats to use) but for example disable chosing
'tbz' (bzip2 compression) or 'txz' (XZ / LZMA2 compression) formats.

BTW. XZ is just new name (and improved format) for LZMA compression.
Perhaps it should be disabled by default (you can be almost sure for
gzip and bzip2 to be present on platforms one usually deploy gitweb,
but it is not true for xz-utils).

P.S. Snapshot caching.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: The XZ patch?

[Junio C Hamano]

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>
>> Mark A Rada wrote:
>> >
>> > I was wondering what the fate of my XZ patch was (I didn't do
>> > something dumb, did I?). Never got a response after my last
>> > submit.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't reply to the last version, did I? I liked both
> patches
>  
>> No comments usually meant noone cared enough about the implemented
>> feature to comment on it. Personally, I'd never use a compression
>> algorithm that hogs as much memory as XZ does. "Good enough" really
>> is just that, imo, and bzip2 and gzip are widely available pretty
>> much everywhere, whereas I've never heard of XZ before.
>
> Well, there were two patches in last series, and I'd rather liked the
> one that decoupled list of _known_ snapshot formats from the list of
> snapshot formats projects are _allowed to use_, when project specific
> override for 'snapshot' feature is turned on.  So for example one can
> allow project specific override (so projects can chose whether to have
> snapshot, and what formats to use) but for example disable chosing
> 'tbz' (bzip2 compression) or 'txz' (XZ / LZMA2 compression) formats.

I kind of liked the generic "disabling" support, even though I was
uninterested in adding xz or any other formats.  Perhaps it is more useful
if the patches were in reverse order.  First allow site administrators to
selectively disable the current set of formats, with documentation updates
for that feature, then finally add xz.