From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8A21F453 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:05:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728504AbfAXTFB (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:01 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:47736 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1725951AbfAXTFA (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:00 -0500 Received: (qmail 9619 invoked by uid 109); 24 Jan 2019 19:05:00 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:05:00 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 31273 invoked by uid 111); 24 Jan 2019 19:05:05 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:05:05 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:04:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:04:59 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Lucy Phipps Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH] optimize PNGs with FileOptimizer 13.50.2431 (x86) and ZopfliPNG 1.0.2 Message-ID: <20190124190458.GA29828@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190124180755.6124-1-landfillbaby@outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:34:29PM +0000, Lucy Phipps wrote: > honestly i just like optimizing files. the test images still work but > one of them is half the size as before. i don't know if it needs to be > bigger. it doesn't make any actual difference I'm not sure if we actually see any benefit to optimizing them, though. Optimizing a file which is served to many clients makes sense. So these: > > > gitweb/static/git-favicon.png | Bin 115 -> 106 bytes > > > gitweb/static/git-logo.png | Bin 207 -> 204 bytes should be optimized (and largely already are, from the byte counts). But these: > > > t/test-binary-1.png | Bin 5660 -> 2603 bytes > > > t/test-binary-2.png | Bin 275 -> 217 bytes never go anywhere except developer's working trees. And since the history is kept in Git, we keep the original version of the file, too. So this is actually making git.git slightly _larger_, even though checked-out file in the working tree is smaller. I'm not sure that's worth the tradeoff. -Peff