From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: demerphq Subject: Re: extra headers in commit objects Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:01:17 +0100 Message-ID: <9b18b3111002031101p3385ecdfo638433bc269791aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100203174041.GC14799@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , git To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 03 20:01:52 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 1NckU3-0000mC-JZ for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:01:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757557Ab0BCTBV convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:01:21 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:52706 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756905Ab0BCTBT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:01:19 -0500 Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so380829bwz.28 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:01:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1TUnsEbD0jEV6TWRl+7pr2L92nZwFS+tLjiMOqFLGHM=; b=phIZrsnTtjTGJeasd7MAa03hW8veuUEujXQMa4DHn+JUa0t3UTcq1fIihZl37lqykj h4yYWB2WBAQlEd94pCVe8QsO4CMN9biMrGecSabm7SZr+6Lj9CgGhf2PPdnJnXER3x7I HuT2LzECMglZEotqs37RdDAyAshh3UqoSK0YY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bEAYZBCkDwTwNdZJJ0mKw+zakBhnsaw4wfN4ZSFdDMQUy4nxn4EbO+DX235lnmNWqr MA69eObXteja6KdKy1kFuk6abkdhBYXadfMrR+k5lrL7/YToYOcFv4IeLyHH+t1twY2l 6CUQGWEd4WI3be5GZkB75eZdjjjuC2fFlfFKM= Received: by 10.239.188.133 with SMTP id p5mr806821hbh.100.1265223677576; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:01:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 3 February 2010 19:15, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > >> Am I correct that core C developers are still under the opinion >> that extra headers in a commit object aren't encouraged? > > I would say so. > > [...] >> At the end of the day, is it a bug that C git doesn't support >> working with extra commit headers? =A0IMHO, no, because, we've >> rejected these in the past, and its not part of the Git standard. >> And other implementations shouldn't be trying to sell it that way. > > Agreed. =A0And this was discussed in great length on this list on few > occasions already (probably more than a year back). One problem, is that if you take the approach you say then you basically guarantee that a new git that DOES add new headers will break an old git that doesnt know about the headers, and actually doesnt care about them either. So it would essentially mean that if you ever have to change the commit format you will be in a position where new git commits will be incompatible by design with old git commits. Maybe I misunderstand, but this doesnt seem to accord with my reading of the original design objectives and philosophy of git. 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. As a lurker here I understand completely if you ignore this mail entirely. But this seems to me to be a decision that could bite you later. cheers, Yves --=20 perl -Mre=3Ddebug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"