> Compressed html changelogs: > > If I understand correctly, Manoj's argument is basically that > except for extreme circumstances, the lack of convenience in dealing > with compressed html changelogs outweighs the size benefits. On that > matter I don't really have a firm conviction one way or the other, but I > have no idea what "arbitrary size" would be considered appropriate to > require compression. Is it reasonable to leave the decision to compress > up to the individual developer? I think I would prefer that to a number > arbitrarily carved in stone.
i would definitley prefer one or the other. i think non-compressed is the way to go. consider this: slowe machines would crumble on unzipping larger files, but newer machines would have plenty of space. i really think we should push for consistency. -------------------------------------------------------- # Justin Maurer GNOME Hacker # [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Developer # http://slashdot.org/ Slashdot Author # 09 84 FC 03 13 AA 4A AF F6 A4 85 9D 8C 96 B6 A4 --------------------------------------------------------
