From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:41:03 GMT
Subject: Re: "git archve --format=tar" output changed from 1.8.1 to 1.8.2.1
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:
> 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