On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pie...@archlinux.de> wrote: > But sure, if everybody thinks that we need multiple compression methods at the > same time, let's forget about the patch and I'll write a new one.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's just that the patch was sent to the ML, apparently for some sort of code review. That's all I (we?) are suggesting: there is room for improvement <here>. I can think of a handful of cases where switching to "one true compression algorithm" will bite us in the ass, and thus think it needs to be more flexible. I'm not suggesting "I want to do crazy shit with compression"