On 2018-04-05 at 09:08, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 04/04/2018 06:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> maybe 2.0 to keep it >> short and simple. > > I have a more-drastic idea in mind. Let's replace gzip's source code > with pigz's, make the minimal set of changes needed to make it > compatible with gzip and/or GNU in general, and call it gzip 2.0. In > the meantime, we can keep the gzip 1 series around with the > traditional implementation.
I totally support this idea too! that’s at least… some months I was collecting a maildir of all the mail mentioning pigz and the future of gzip here and there, waiting to be put in the References header of a mail I was still composing to ask what was gzip going to be now there’s pigz that seems to replace everything, and be maintained by people active here, and I’m ignoring all this just to say +1 to this.
