3:33 p.m.
On Tue, 14 August 2001, Andy Piper wrote:
This patch updates JDE and the usual suspects to their required levels
for 2.2.7.
The patch doesn't contain the necessary binary files so it may be
easier for me to check it in myself.
Andy, the patch was 2.8 Mb!! I'm on the road and away from my email server,
and your message chewed up over half of my storage on my alumni account.
There has got to be some better way to handle large patches like this one!
- vin
4:10 p.m.
New subject: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
|--==> "ACS" == Alvin C Shelton <Alvin> writes:
ACS> On Tue, 14 August 2001, Andy Piper wrote:
>This patch updates JDE and the usual suspects to their required
levels
>for 2.2.7.
ACS> Andy, the patch was 2.8 Mb!! I'm on the road and away
from my email server,
ACS> and your message chewed up over half of my storage on my alumni account.
ACS> There has got to be some better way to handle large patches like this one!
I agree. I think anything over a certain limit should be gzipped and
sent as an attachment.
What should the limit be? 100Kb - 200Kb?
And if it's still over the limit after compressing it, how about just
posting the ChangeLog and a URL of where the patch can be downloaded
for reviewal.
Just my thoughts.
--
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
| XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
| It's a way of life. |
|------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
4:25 p.m.
New subject: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
>>>> "SY" == Steve Youngs
<youngs(a)xemacs.org> writes:
SY> |--==> "ACS" == Alvin C Shelton <Alvin> writes:
ACS> On Tue, 14 August 2001, Andy Piper wrote:
>> This patch updates JDE and the usual suspects to their
required levels
>> for 2.2.7.
ACS> Andy, the patch was 2.8 Mb!! I'm on the road and
away from my email server,
ACS> and your message chewed up over half of my storage on my alumni account.
ACS> There has got to be some better way to handle large patches like this one!
SY> I agree. I think anything over a certain limit should be gzipped and
SY> sent as an attachment.
SY> What should the limit be? 100Kb - 200Kb?
Andy sent the patch to xemacs-beta too. There it got held for a
approval due to size.
I rejected it. Andy should have gotten mail about this from Mailman.
I think we should institute a size limit on xemacs-patches too.
Just so the guys with the smaller patches don't feel second-class ;->
Seriously, what limit should we put in?
Only 5 patches since 25 Oct 1998 were over 200Kbyte, three of which
came from Ben. But the biggest was only over 600Kbyte.
200Kbyte seems reasonable to me.
Opinions?
SY> And if it's still over the limit after compressing it, how about just
SY> posting the ChangeLog and a URL of where the patch can be downloaded
SY> for reviewal.
SY> Just my thoughts.
SY> --
SY> |---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: 9E7E2820>---|
SY> | XEmacs - It's not just an editor. |
SY> | It's a way of life. |
SY> |------------------------------------<youngs(a)xemacs.org>---|
--
Adrian Aichner
mailto:adrian＠xemacs.org
http://www.xemacs.org/
5:27 p.m.
New subject: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
>>>> "APA" == Adrian Aichner
<Adrian.Aichner(a)t-online.de> writes:
APA> Only 5 patches since 25 Oct 1998 were over 200Kbyte, three of which
APA> came from Ben. But the biggest was only over 600Kbyte.
APA> 200Kbyte seems reasonable to me.
APA> Opinions?
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.
Andy's patch is more a matter of unresolved policy: Should package
patches which are essentially vendor imports be sent to the list? I
conjecture nobody's going to read such patches, which is why Andy
should simply drop a finished tarball somewhere and announce that he's
synching up a package, and that interested people can try it out.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
5:59 p.m.
New subject: [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.
5:36 p.m.
New subject: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
At 07:33 AM 8/15/2001 -0700, Alvin C Shelton wrote:
Andy, the patch was 2.8 Mb!! I'm on the road and away from my
email server,
and your message chewed up over half of my storage on my alumni account.
There has got to be some better way to handle large patches like this one!
Sorry, I goofed. I realised after I had sent it.
andy
3:20 a.m.
New subject: [PACKAGES] JDE 2.2.7.1 update
Andy Piper <andyp(a)bea.com> writes:
At 07:33 AM 8/15/2001 -0700, Alvin C Shelton wrote:
>Andy, the patch was 2.8 Mb!! I'm on the road and away from my email server,
>and your message chewed up over half of my storage on my alumni account.
>
>There has got to be some better way to handle large patches like this one!
Sorry, I goofed. I realised after I had sent it.
I'm sorry that I freaked out. I was under some time pressure this
morning, and I didn't want to have to deal with deleting a message
from my account.
- vin
8310
days inactive
8311
days old
6 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Adrian Aichner -
Andy Piper -
Darryl Okahata -
Michael Sperber -
Steve Youngs -
Vin Shelton -
Vin Shelton