<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 September 2016 at 23:31, Paul Eggert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eggert@cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank">eggert@cs.ucla.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 09/05/2016 10:38 PM, Jon Skeet wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The "tried and tested" compression formats (gzip, zip, even bzip2) <br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
If the overriding goal is a compression format that works everywhere now, then gzip is clearly the way to go, as we're already using it and all other formats are therefore more likely to cause a problem on some platform somewhere.<br>
<br>
Luckily, though, that's not an absolute goal. Although lzip format is not everybody's preference, this is also true for other compression formats, and lzip is a reasonable choice for problems that the new distribution attempts to address.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So whose preference <i>is</i> lzip? You've seen a number of us express our dissatisfaction - who actually benefits from this? Sure, it means downloading slightly less data - but whose priority is that, whose "absolute goal"? We've already agreed that this is aimed at developers rather than end users - and I and others (as developers) have expressed our preference for gzip (or zip or bzip2). Who has expressed a significant preference for lzip, out of the target audience?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Our continuing to distribute gzip-format tarballs will address backwards-compatibility concerns.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, those of us who prefer a compression format which is widely supported within programming languages can use the existing distribution format - but can't take advantage of any of the benefits of the new format. Why not bring the benefits of the new format to more people?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Besides, it's not like this is our first rodeo. We formerly used Lempel-Ziv format, and switched to gzip format before gzip was nearly-universally installed and supported.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see that that's any argument for changing now.</div><div><br></div><div>One option I'll repeat as it seems to have been missed: distribute multiple formats. If there's already going to be the backwards-compatible gzip files and the new lz file, why not <i>also</i> have a new gzip file?</div><div><br></div><div>Jon</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>