On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:52:31AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 06:48:58PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> > I don't care for the liternal 128, particularly uncommented.
>
> Yeah, 128 was a quick, more-than-enough value. I've improved the patch
> and checked in the result. I wish zlib.h had a define that implemented
> their rule for how much potential expansion can occur when compressing
> a buffer, but since it didn't, I created a define based on the comments.
I'm guessing the numbers are still overkill but that is just
a nit. What counts is that we get the output buffer large
enough and the comments explain why.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
