SIG-rules-authors
Git
SIG-rules-authors | Git | |
---|---|---|
5 | 288 | |
26 | 50,310 | |
- | 2.1% | |
1.1 | 10.0 | |
3 months ago | 5 days ago | |
Shell | C | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
SIG-rules-authors
-
Git archive generation meets Hyrum's law
In this case, it seems that GitHub was asked about it. From the thread linked in the article:
> After a fruitful exchange with GitHub support staff, I was able to confirm the following (quoting with their permission):
>> I checked with our team and they confirmed that we can expect the checksums for repository release archives, found at /archive/refs/tags/$tag, to be stable going forward. That cannot be said, however, for repository code download archives found at archive/v6.0.4.
>> It's totally understandable that users have come to expect a stable and consistent checksum value for these archives, which would be the case most of the time. However, it is not meant to be reliable or a way to distribute software releases and nothing in the software stack is made to try to produce consistent archives. This is no different from creating a tarball locally and trying verify it with the hash of the tarball someone created on their own machine.
>> If you had only a tag with no associated release, you should still expect to have a consistent checksum for the archives at /archive/refs/tags/$tag.
> In summary: It is safe to reference archives of any kind via the /refs/tags endpoint, everything else enjoys no guarantees.
(posted 4 Feb 2022)
https://github.com/bazel-contrib/SIG-rules-authors/issues/11...
There's even a million linked PRs and issues where people went around and specifically updated their code to point to the URLs that were, nominally, stable.
I suspect that the GH employee who made these comments just misunderstood how these archives were being generated, or the behavior was depending on some internal implementation detail that got wiped away at some point. But if an employee at a big-ass company publicly says "yeah that's supported" to employees at another big-ass company, people are gonna take it as somewhat official.
-
Git archive checksums may change
FWIW according to https://github.com/bazel-contrib/SIG-rules-authors/issues/11... a commitment was made, although in an exchange in some support ticket, and not in documentation.
- GitHub just broken Homebrew, Bazel, Spack and Conan package managers
Git
- Git tracks itself. See it's first commit of itself
-
Resistance against London tube map commit history (a.k.a. git merge hell) (2015)
Look at any PR/patch series that got merged into the Git project. https://github.com/git/git/
Any random one. Because those that did not meet the minimum criteria for a well-crafted history would not have passed review.
- GitHub Git Mirror Down
- Four ways to solve the "Remote Origin Already Exists" error.
-
So You Think You Know Git – Git Tips and Tricks by Scott Chacon
Boy, I can't find this either (but also, the kernel mailing list is _really_ difficult to search). I really remember Linus saying something like "it's not a real SCM, but maybe someone could build one on top of it someday" or something like that, but I cannot figure out how to find that.
You _can_ see, though, that in his first README, he refers to what he's building as not a "real SCM":
https://github.com/git/git/commit/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23...
- Maintain-Git.txt
-
Git Commit Messages by Jeff King
Here is the direct link, as HN somehow removes the query string: https://github.com/git/git/commits?author=peff&since=2023-10...
- Git commit messages by Jeff King
- My favourite Git commit (2019)
-
Do we think of Git commits as diffs, snapshots, and/or histories?
I understand all that.
I'm saying, if you write a survey and one of the possible answers is "diff", but you don't clearly define what you mean by "diff", then don't be surprised if respondents use any reasonable definition that makes sense to them. Ask an ambiguous question, get a mishmash of answers.
The thing that Git uses for packfiles is called a "delta" by Git, but it's also reasonable to call it a "diff". After all, Git's delta algorithm is "greatly inspired by parts of LibXDiff from Davide Libenzi"[1]. Not LibXDelta but LibXDiff.
Yes, how Git stores blobs (using deltas) is orthogonal to how Git uses blobs. But while that orthogonality is useful for reasoning about Git, it's not wrong to think of a commit as the totality of what Git does, including that optimization. (Some people, when learning Git, stumble over the way it's described as storing full copies, think it's wasteful. For them to wrap their heads around Git, they have to understand that the optimization exists. Which makes sense because Git probably wouldn't be practical if it lacked that optimization.)
The reason I'm bringing all this up is, if you're trying to explain Git, which is what the original article is about, then it's very important to keep in mind that someone who is learning Git needs to know what you mean when you say "diff". Most people who already know Git would tend to gravitate toward the definition of "diff" that you're assuming (the thing that Git computes on the fly and never stores), but people who already know Git aren't the target audience when you're teaching Git.
---
[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/diff-delta.c