stunned by the performance, I'd like to use rapidgzip (I am on v 0.10.3) as drop-in replacement in my scripts, but despite of using the -q switch, the efficiency message still appears ("Decompressed in total xxx B in xxx s -> xxx MB/s"). May I suggest to completely silence rapidgzip (which would also overcome the use of -q, thus being a real drop-in replacement) and let e.g. non-error messages popping up by allowing different levels of verbosity?
Sounds reasonable. I'd say, that this is more of a leftover from the (ongoing) development and performance benchmarking. I might even include the silencing in v0.10.4, which I hopefully get released by next week.
Hi,
stunned by the performance, I'd like to use rapidgzip (I am on v 0.10.3) as drop-in replacement in my scripts, but despite of using the
-q
switch, the efficiency message still appears ("Decompressed in total xxx B in xxx s -> xxx MB/s"). May I suggest to completely silence rapidgzip (which would also overcome the use of-q
, thus being a real drop-in replacement) and let e.g. non-error messages popping up by allowing different levels of verbosity?