git-archive-all VS SIG-rules-authors

- you have submodules (to which `git archive` is completely blind).

Note that `git-archive-all`[1] can help as long as your submodules don't do things like `[attr]custom-attr` in their `.gitattributes` as it is only allowed in the top-level `.gitattributes` file and cannot be added to the tree otherwise.

[1]https://github.com/roehling/git-archive-all

Thanks for sharing!

Depending on the context, if you don't want this in git history, and want to handle git submodules, there's also git-archive-all https://github.com/roehling/git-archive-all (if you like shell scripts, it is using bats for testing - it was the first time I heard of it)

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.

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.