Re: "git archve --format=tar" output changed from 1.8.1 to 1.8.2.1
- From
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
- Date
- Jan 31, 2013, 17:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20130131174103.GA20111@kroah.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vzjzpgswz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:32:12AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 25 quoted lines
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> writes: > > > The way we upload the Linux kernel to kernel.org involves creating a tar > > archive, signing the archive, and then just uploading the signature. > > The server then checks out the repo based on the tag, generates the tar > > archive and checks the signature to make sure they match. > > > > A few days ago I released the 3.0.61 kernel, and it turned out that I > > couldn't upload the kernel release because 'git archive' now creates a > > binary file that differs from an older version of git. > > ... > > Now keeping binary compatibility of tar archive files isn't really a big > > deal, but, the commit to git that causes this seems a bit odd, is it > > really needed? Or can we just fix the version of tar with NetBSD > > instead? :) > > > > Any ideas? > > How about fixing kup to teach the "let's cheat and let the other end > run 'git archive', if the resulting archive and GPG signature > locally created does match, we do not have to transfer the tarball > itself" trick a fall-back mode that says "but if the signature does > not match, then transfer the bulk used to create the signature to > the remote anyway". This fallback can and should of course be > useful for the compressed patch transfer.
Ugh, uploading a 431Mb file, over a flaky wireless connection (I end up doing lots of kernel releases while traveling), would be a horrible change. I'd rather just keep using the same older version of git that kernel.org is running instead.
thanks,
greg k-h