From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: extra headers in commit objects Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:26:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20100203192658.GP9553@machine.or.cz> References: <20100203174041.GC14799@spearce.org> <9b18b3111002031101p3385ecdfo638433bc269791aa@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicolas Pitre , "Shawn O. Pearce" , git To: demerphq X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 03 20:27:18 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NcksZ-0003tJ-4H for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:27:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757364Ab0BCT1G (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:27:06 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:38053 "EHLO machine.or.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756024Ab0BCT1E (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:27:04 -0500 Received: by machine.or.cz (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1CCFF86208C; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:26:59 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9b18b3111002031101p3385ecdfo638433bc269791aa@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 08:01:17PM +0100, demerphq wrote: > Shouldn't an old git just ignore headers from a new git? > > I mean, forget about the fact that somebody is doing something naughty > with the git protocol, ask youself if you want this rule to basically > prevent any backwards compatible changes with older gits. We have done similar changes in the past and if there would be such a change, we can phase-in it over the course of several releases. I think the fall-out would not be that bad; we have some experience with even making Debian-stable Git compatible with new stuff. ;-) Also, what if any extra header would be essential and we _wanted_ non-compatible Git to break down on it? On the other hand, allowing this preventively would apparently have the immediate effect of alternative implementations users happily starting to use it, and then to get to the data, people would demand git-core support as well. _And_ so far everyone seems really really fairly sure we don't want the headers and it's not likely to change. P.S.: On the other hand, I think that change was probably just misguided, not malicious. And I wouldn't be that hard on Dulwich, it's an early-0.x software after all, it's allowed to crash and have protocol issues. ;-) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. -- Dunbal (464142)