Re: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
wrote:
We did agree that *all* patches should go to xemacs-patches for
archival purposes. By nature, some of them are large. Subscribers of
xemacs-patches should be able to cope with it.
Policy issues aside, I think large patches should be allowed, *IF*
"patches are to be archived" (but only to xemacs-patches -- there should
be a limit, if there isn't one already, for xemacs-{beta,nt}). If we
don't care about archiving, well, it then becomes a policy issue (I
suggest 500K). ;-)
However, I also suggest that large patches be run through bzip2
instead of gzip. Using Andy's entire message (not just the patch) as a
test:
Original size: 2857058 bytes
gzip -9 | uuencode: 1046812 bytes (~3 seconds)
bzip2 -9 | uuencode: 728360 bytes (~12 seconds)
The times are for how long it took to do the compressing and
uuencoding. Also, bzip2 is included with cygwin, so PC users shouldn't
have a problem.
--
Darryl Okahata
darrylo(a)soco.agilent.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Agilent Technologies, or
of the little green men that have been following him all day.