Hi folks, I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle. However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs. 1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them. While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically improve this before the next release.
I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days, there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1] is an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins, and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for the build going forward (toolkit as well). That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I would love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks. [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/ <https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/> [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003 [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003 [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts> Andy LoPresto [email protected] [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
