From: Martin Atukunda Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:08:48 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add .git/version Message-ID: <20051117190848.GA5745@igloo.ds.co.ug> In-Reply-To: <200511171741.23147.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 05:41:23PM +0100, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > On Thursday 17 November 2005 17:33, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > > > Why? Ideally, the git commands first should check if they can handle the > > > repository format. If they can not handle the version, they should bail > > > out with an error [*] > > > Now suppose we want to release Git 2 without change the repository > > > format at all. Thus, even if Git 1 tool *would* work with repositories > > > created by Git 2, they will fail in the version check! > > > > > > > Not that I have an opinion on these changes, but Netscape 7 still > > handles HTTP 1.1. Just because we up the major-number for git doesn't > > mean we have to do the same for the repository format version. > > Of course we do not want that. > My comment was about this, as the proposed patch installed a > .git/version file with the git version in it, which would lead to > this strange result. > I agree, I'll resubmit a patch to create a .git/version file that simply says 1. which specific git commands would most likely want to know about the version of the repo format? I could look at them to see what needs to be changed so that they don't corrupt a repo, or as Johannes said, the use of this file would become handy only when an incompatible change is made. In which case, init-db.c just creates it for now, as a simple safe guard. - Martin - -- Due to a shortage of devoted followers, the production of great leaders has been discontinued.