It's not a bug (it's not a feature, either), but more of a suggestion, and I realize it's very short notice, and therefore probably better suited for v1.2 or somewhere in between. It's also not too important, and now I'm rambling, so ...garvinhicking wrote:If you know of anything left uninvestigated, please report it here!
Code: Select all
-rw-r--r-- 1 garvin garvin 2807150 Dec 11 12:06 serendipity-1.1-lite.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 garvin garvin 3606825 Dec 11 12:06 serendipity-1.1-lite.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 garvin garvin 3422782 Dec 11 12:05 serendipity-1.1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 garvin garvin 4297596 Dec 11 12:06 serendipity-1.1.zip
-rw-r--r-- 1 garvin garvin 1972647 Dec 11 12:08 serendipity-1.1-lite.tar.bz2
My original thought wasn't even about uploading the untarred/-zipped files (although that's even 'worse'), but downloading the tarred/zipped onesgarvinhicking wrote:Generally, FTP upload is a lot faster if you use parallel threading (like smartFTP offers). Mostly because of the many small files it would take a lot longer otherwise.
See, this is why I always sigh a little when something is offered as a zipfile onlygarvinhicking wrote:(Wow, I didn't notice that ZIP files are so much larger then TGZ files?!? That's wicked).
(Another reason is that TGZ and TBZ are opened much faster than zips in the midnight commander, at least on my brave, but old home box.)I use 7-ZIP, this can handle about anything. Absolute recommendation!By the way, for our Windows users: As far as I know there are freeware tools for Win which can actually decompress .tar.gz (not sure about .tar.bz2), just don't ask me for names
Yes, a bz2 upload I will add to the next release, because I just saw how much they differ in size.By the way, being a linux only guy (and seeing your results table) I think it would be really awesome if we could offer a bzip2-compressed tarball also, if it isn't too much of a hassle. Those tend to be even smaller than TGZ, depending on the type of files included in the tarball.
Depending on the traffic 'budget' for s9y.org you should maybe think about switching the nightlies to .tar.bz2 if it's not a problem to use those under Win ..? Just another thought.garvinhicking wrote:I use 7-ZIP, this can handle about anything. Absolute recommendation!By the way, for our Windows users: As far as I know there are freeware tools for Win which can actually decompress .tar.gz (not sure about .tar.bz2), just don't ask me for names
I assume that should be hurtsSo if you set this option to "TRUE" you will compliy with that RFC, but readers of your RSS feed might miss items in their holidays. So either way, either it hearts Aggregators like Planet, or it hurts actual readers of your blog.
Until today (yes today!) I too was on dial up so I found a solution to this problem. Basically you use a server to server file transfer script to directly transfer the tarball/zip to your web server. You can then extract it using cpanel's file manager.YellowLed wrote:It's not a bug (it's not a feature, either), but more of a suggestion, and I realize it's very short notice, and therefore probably better suited for v1.2 or somewhere in between. It's also not too important, and now I'm rambling, so ...garvinhicking wrote:If you know of anything left uninvestigated, please report it here!
I'm sitting on a thin net connection at home, and although I do have access to a DSL line sometimes, it often 'troubles me' that the s9y tarballs/zipfiles are rather huge. I think it would be nice if we could offer a 'lean' version of it, i.e. a tarball/zipfiles without extra templates. The templates subfolder is 1.9M (untarred) of the 3M (tarred) total in 1.0.4, 2.2M (untarred) of 3.3M (tarred) in 1.1-beta6. We could probably save some of this by stripping it down to anything but the default template(s).
I'm not sure whether there's other stuff which could be left out, but I'm sure this 'lean' tarball/zipfile would be appreciated.
YL