Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 02/06/2010 02:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> Of course, if you really care about bandwidth, you're better off just 
> fetching the git trees instead, but the question for non-git users is: 
> 
>    Would it be ok to _only_ have the 'bz2' patches and tar-balls?
> 
> Having two copies of every large file seems silly, if nobody really 
> requires the traditional .gz format..
> 

Please don't do that right now!  First of all, we don't back up .bz2
files, since they are all autogenerated.

We're currently about to figure out how to manage the transition to .xz
on kernel.org.

At the moment, I personally prefer the notion of removing the .bz2 files
(as opposed to .gz) in favor of .xz for two reasons:

a) the .gz files are the current original content.
b) gzip is a lot faster than bzip2, but xz is as fast or faster than
   bzip2 for decompression.  bzip2 is bigger than xz and slower, and so
   it doesn't have any unique reason to exist.

	-hpa
-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.