Re: [xz-devel] [PATCH] String to filter and filter to string
Hi Is there any progress on this? Jia I see you have recent commits. Why can't you commit this yourself? Jigar
Re: [xz-devel] [PATCH] String to filter and filter to string
>> The next alpha release should be coming this year so I >> don't think it will be as long as you think until it is in a stable >> release. > Patches spend years on this mailing list. 5.2.0 release was 7 years ago. > There is no reason to think anything is coming soon. Over 1 month and no closer to being merged. Not a suprise.
Re: [xz-devel] [PATCH] String to filter and filter to string
> I chose "+" since it was the most intuitive delimiter that wasn't a > special character on most shells. If we used ";" or "|" they would > either have to be escaped or require the command to be in quotation > marks, which are both annoying to use as a command line argument. If > you can think of a better character I would be interested to hear, but > I don't think those are better. I see. "+" is ok. > I appreciate the feedback. This will certainly lead to improvements of > the format. The next alpha release should be coming this year so I > don't think it will be as long as you think until it is in a stable > release. The contributors to this project are hobbyists so we can't > dedicate 40+ hours a week for fast releases of high quality. Thank you > for your understanding and if you want to help work on anything you > can always submit a patch :) Patches spend years on this mailing list. 5.2.0 release was 7 years ago. There is no reason to think anything is coming soon.
Re: [xz-devel] [PATCH] String to filter and filter to string
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 02:42, Jigar Kumar wrote: > The existing way to add filter chain is confusing so this change will be > good. I do not think the -s short op is good. --filters as the long op is > good no need for -s. I was thinking the -s would be intuitive because it is short for "string to filters", but if it is confusing or unneeded I can remove it. > The "+" is not the best character. What about using ";" or "|"? I chose "+" since it was the most intuitive delimiter that wasn't a special character on most shells. If we used ";" or "|" they would either have to be escaped or require the command to be in quotation marks, which are both annoying to use as a command line argument. If you can think of a better character I would be interested to hear, but I don't think those are better. > It should show all option names and values. It matches the current output > with -vv option. That is a good point. The extra verbosity is probably worth it so users understand what filter options they are really using. > > If anyone has any suggestions for improvements on the > > string format, I am interested to hear them. I consider this patch a > > draft and subject to change from community suggestions. Let me know > > how this can be improved! > > I did not test your codes, but if they work then I think the format only > needs minor adjustments I suggest. Your efforts are good but based on the > slow release schedule it will unfortunatly be years until the community > actually gets this quality of life feature. I appreciate the feedback. This will certainly lead to improvements of the format. The next alpha release should be coming this year so I don't think it will be as long as you think until it is in a stable release. The contributors to this project are hobbyists so we can't dedicate 40+ hours a week for fast releases of high quality. Thank you for your understanding and if you want to help work on anything you can always submit a patch :) Jia Tan
Re: [xz-devel] [PATCH] String to filter and filter to string
Hi
> These patches add lzma_str_to_filters and lzma_filters_to_str to
> liblzma and add a new "-s, --filters" option to xz.
The existing way to add filter chain is confusing so this change will be good.
I do not think the -s short op is good. --filters as the long op is good no
need for -s.
> The "=" delimits a filter name from a comma separated list of option
> value pairs. The "=" is optional and only needed if you want to
> override default options. For lzma1 and 2, a short hand for a preset
> can be used: lzma2={preset number}.
>
> The ":" delimits option name from option value.
>
> The "," delimits option value pairs from each other.
>
> The "+" delimits filters from each other.
The "+" is not the best character. What about using ";" or "|"?
> Right now, lzma_filters_to_str will only specify option names and
> values if they are different from the default. This can be changed to
> always display option names and values for all options if this is
> better.
It should show all option names and values. It matches the current output with
-vv option.
> If anyone has any suggestions for improvements on the
> string format, I am interested to hear them. I consider this patch a
> draft and subject to change from community suggestions. Let me know
> how this can be improved!
I did not test your codes, but if they work then I think the format only needs
minor adjustments I suggest. Your efforts are good but based on the slow
release schedule it will unfortunatly be years until the community actually
gets this quality of life feature.
Jigar
