Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Jan 21, 2007, 13:43 UTC
Message-ID: <20070121134308.GA24090@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <7v3b6439uh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi Junio !

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 03:20:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
> surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
> git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
> would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
> thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
> 
> Comments?

Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly increase the number of testers. Hint: how often do you try random software that requires that you first install CVS, SVN or arch just to get it, compared to how often you try random software provided as tar.gz ? Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.

> Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
> exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.

(...)

Show 12 quoted lines

>  - There is a configuration variable core.legacyheaders that
>    changes the format of loose objects so that they are more
>    efficient to pack and to send out of the repository over git
>    native protocol, since v1.4.2.  However, loose objects
>    written in the new format cannot be read by git older than
>    that version; people fetching from your repository using
>    older clients over dumb transports (e.g. http) using older
>    versions of git will also be affected.
> 
>  - Since v1.4.3, configuration repack.usedeltabaseoffset allows
>    packfile to be created in more space efficient format, which
>    cannot be read by git older than that version.

I know it's a bit late to ask, but if new on-disk format changes, isn't it time to bump the version to 2.0 ? It would be easier for many people to remember that GIT 1.X uses format version 1 and that GIT 2.X uses format version 2 with backwards compatibility with 1.X. I also think that 1.5 is much more different from 1.0 than a mid-term 2.0 would be from current 1.5.

That said, kudos for the nice changelog !

Regards, Willy