From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bdowning@lavos.net (Brian Downing) Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: correct and clarify core.*compression documentation Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:23:08 -0600 Message-ID: <20071119162307.GI6212@lavos.net> References: <20071119152853.GH6212@lavos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Juselius To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 19 17:23:40 2007 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 1Iu9PF-0000fU-K1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:23:30 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753213AbXKSQXM (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:23:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752933AbXKSQXL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:23:11 -0500 Received: from mxsf05.insightbb.com ([74.128.0.75]:38089 "EHLO mxsf05.insightbb.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752740AbXKSQXK (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:23:10 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,437,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="119846806" Received: from unknown (HELO asav00.insightbb.com) ([172.31.249.124]) by mxsf05.insightbb.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2007 11:23:09 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAG9HQUdKhvkY/2dsb2JhbACBWA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,437,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="134543442" Received: from 74-134-249-24.dhcp.insightbb.com (HELO mail.lavos.net) ([74.134.249.24]) by asav00.insightbb.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2007 11:23:08 -0500 Received: by mail.lavos.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C3BB309F21; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:23:08 -0600 (CST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:51:31AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > * Explain that the default of core.compression is -1, zlib default, and > > add a quote from zlib.h explaining what that actually means. > > No, this is wrong. core.compression has no default. It is meaningful > only when an explicit value is configured. Would you prefer this? If not set, packs will be compressed to the zlib default level, which is "a default compromise between speed and compression (currently equivalent to level 6)." I'm trying to make it reassuring as to the fact that, "yes, packs are compressed plenty, you really don't need to mess with this unless you want to." As it stands I could see the potential confusion that no (or poor) compression will occur in packs unless this is set. -bcd