Standards for stud groups


let's put our energy somewhere else
#19
I suggest that we stop re-discussing the pros and contras of stugs again.
- the stugs now exist officially, and they have a positive effect on filesize and parsing time
- they do not worsen anything else except for adding a handful of new primitives, so they do not hurt
- they are official now

Would we re-start the discussion of having them, and the outcome would be
that we shall keep them everything is like it is now.
Should the outcome be that we shall not keep them would be a useless result
as stugs are officially out and cannot be removed anymore.

We're wasting energy here IMHO

Regarding the clustering of certain filesystems: this is nothing our library should rely on.
In future, anybody can invent another filesystem and store our files differently.
So clustering of existing filesystems should not be an argument for us to stop saving filesize.
We must save filesize as good as we can.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Standards for stud groups - by Tim Gould - 2011-11-15, 10:08
Re: Standards for stud groups - by Tim Gould - 2011-11-15, 22:17
Re: Standards for stud groups - by Chris Dee - 2011-11-23, 20:53
why stugs exist / scaling - by Steffen - 2011-12-09, 23:17
Re: why stugs exist / scaling - by Steffen - 2011-12-09, 23:58
let's put our energy somewhere else - by Steffen - 2011-12-10, 0:57

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)