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-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DE41F9FD for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231709AbhCASSz (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:18:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59292 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234233AbhCASQO (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:16:14 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33229AAF09; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:15:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=a2L9wirCJBETbzPRTm+dFCGN414=; b=XAcPCI ZPnRhbsEIh/CeAX0rGNEPtycSe0NznthWfyc7xhUJbbdxDyP3heaojmHWfaTrCkM VVF2BAAX0OYNcU5Q8BLBIbIKNXwu5n543HIe3RPOiUVGR9cEoiXjk+rvGapI0BDj 8nf293U3uUNxZ6CU0soXuEJjh/wYsa2ngINz0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=DBGlilyBcUIsbuh/pbbw6HSjFEZhi6V2 Kx/MOGy9LIckh9PEFx8PFpne/IEydVLktL6OW8HQhMdZuStnYGM2zGf7uO7ukfGT 6BxJFfiY7Om08nPe97VtaWQT81f1agJ9YYyupvba7JRaL7Vsc3sP+MOjdhaGlcNx qzqZNCZvGNo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B00BAAF08; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:15:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EBD7AAF06; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:15:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer , Johannes Schindelin , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Pyeron Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] docs: note that archives are not stable References: <20210227191813.96148-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20210227191813.96148-5-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <87h7lwl5mv.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:15:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: (brian m. carlson's message of "Sun, 28 Feb 2021 18:19:48 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1B5FC282-7ABA-11EB-B7AF-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "brian m. carlson" writes: > The output of 'git archive' is guaranteed to be the same across > versions of git, but the archive itself is not guaranteed to be > bit-for-bit identical. I do not quite get this; your original was clearer. What does it mean to "be the same across versions of git but not identical" at the same time? If output from Git version 1.0 and 2.0 are guranteed to be the same across versions, what more is there for the readers to worry about the format stability? Perhaps you meant ... is guaranteed to be the same for any given version of Git across ports. or something? It would allow kernel.org's use of "Konstantin tells kernel.org users to use Git version X to run 'git archive' and create detached signature on the output, and upload only the signature. The site uses the same Git version X to run 'git archive' to create a tarball and the detached signature magically matches, as the output on two places are bit-for-bit identical". > The output of 'git archive' has changed > in the past, and most likely will in the future. That is correct as a statement of fact. I feel that saying it is either redundant and insufficient at the same time. If we want to tell them "do not depend on the output being bit-for-bit identical", we should say it more explicitly after this sentence, I would think.