--=-jm1z/z2Sm/jGFTgd1nzk Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 18:25, Konstantin Riabitsev wrote: > On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 18:04, seth vidal wrote: > > So I was thinking some more about how to handle the compressed headers > > to not break the current people using it until they get a new client > > which supports patched headers. >=20 > How about instead of trying to preserve compatibility with un-gzipped > headers we just drop it and go directly with gzipped ones. I mean, I > realize that we will break the existing installations for, what is it, 5 > people, but even then all they will have to do is to rm -rf a couple of > directories and do a "yum update" to get the gzipped headers. There are > a few people using the dulug tree, but as you had mentioned, it's > "experimental", so if stuff breaks we won't even have to feel guilty > about it. Sounds reasonable enough. I hate breaking things for people right away, though. (too much sysadmin in me ;) =20 > I just want to adhere to the "KISS" priciple, and currently it tells me > that we don't want to introduce unnecessary complexities. I say let's > gzip all headers and basta. :) >=20 I do think adding header.info versioning would be wise, though, just for future use. Why don't we make it a clean break, then. 0.9.0 will have a changed directory name on the server and gzipped headers? That sound ok to everyone? maybe a small bit of code on the client, so that if sees a non-gzipped header it removes it and gets a new one. just in case. -sv --=-jm1z/z2Sm/jGFTgd1nzk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA9C9J71Aj3x2mIbMcRAvgoAKCqKpOoVzD7JhHT7Ll+X/kmWc2tVQCgnHpI 6flWQ3Tp8ZU+bTwtXYegIuU= =CBPK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jm1z/z2Sm/jGFTgd1nzk--
