Re: [PATCH 2/2] release: use xz compression

Tomi Ollila writes: > > Something related: any wisdom here: > > https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html > I guess for me it lacks some kind of "peer review". As the author notes, he has his own biases being the creator/author of a competing solution. I'm not aware of any more "arms

Re: [PATCH 2/2] release: use xz compression

On Sat, Mar 23 2019, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2019-03-19 07:08:19 -0300, David Bremner wrote: >> This produces tarballs that are roughly 30% smaller. > > LGTM. I can confirm that i'm seeing tarball sizes go from 924543 bytes > (or 917179 bytes with gzip -9) to 644892 bytes with this

Re: [PATCH 2/2] release: use xz compression

David Bremner writes: > This produces tarballs that are roughly 30% smaller. pushed to master. People building snapshots may need to adjust their machinery. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org

Re: [PATCH 2/2] release: use xz compression

On Tue 2019-03-19 07:08:19 -0300, David Bremner wrote: > This produces tarballs that are roughly 30% smaller. LGTM. I can confirm that i'm seeing tarball sizes go from 924543 bytes (or 917179 bytes with gzip -9) to 644892 bytes with this xz approach. I think the ecosystem that notmuch targets

[PATCH 2/2] release: use xz compression

This produces tarballs that are roughly 30% smaller. --- Makefile.global | 4 ++-- Makefile.local | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile.global b/Makefile.global index 27c82433..e4dbce48 100644 --- a/Makefile.global +++ b/Makefile.global @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@