Re: Add Gitweb support for LZMA compressed snapshots

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Johannes
Schindelin[off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Johannes
Schindelin[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote:

quoted

BTW. I wonder if it would be good idea to add support for this format
directly to git-archive...  OTOH it would mean additional dependency.

I don't think it would be a good idea; we do not have bzip2 support
either.

bzip2 has no advantages whatsoever.

Bzzzzt.  Wrong.  Just because you cannot see them does not mean it has no
advantages.

All right, most the time you compress once, and multiple people
uncompress multiple times. Therefore the path that should be optimized
is the decompression, that leaves bzip2 out of the picture.

You can think of advantages of bzip2 in more esoteric cases where the
compression time is also important. I don't think that's the case
here. Actually it might be if gitweb is not caching the tarballs, but
if that's the case I wouldn't say it's an advantage of bzip2.

quoted

AFAIK xz is superior to other formats and it would be nice to see git
make a technological stance encouraging xz.

Bzzzt. Wrong again.  Git's mission in life is not to encourage one
compression over another.

Git's mission in life is not promoting asciidot either, but it's doing
that unintentionally by merely using it.

If at all, the only compression Git actually does promote in a sense is
zlib compression.

quoted

quoted

The only reason we have inbuilt gzip and zip support is because the
format is so similar to Git's own compression.

Personally I don't see the point of having zip support.

Personally, I see the point of having zip support.  It makes things easy
for Windows users.  And it's an established format, much more so than
tar.gz.

Windows can't extract .tar.gz?

-- 
Felipe Contreras