On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> wrote: > That opens another question: > How flexible/extensible/self-describing is the format of the UNTR extension > ? > If we drop the OS name & root dir check because it disallows network use, > but later add a better method to verify that the underlying chain > local OS - network - remote OS-remote FS is OK, > do we need to change the file format of UNTR ? > If yes, can old clients read the new format and vice versa? > Do we need a version information of some kind, or does the > old client skip unknown entries like we do with extensions in the index ? The way index extensions are done so far, there's no actual versioning inside an extension.Once an extension is out, its format is set in stone. If you change your mind, you make a new extension (with a different signature), so signatures are sort of "version". Code is shared mostly so it should not be a problem. Old clients don't recognize new extensions, so they drop them. New clients either stick to old extensions or convert them to new ones. This is all local matters, so I don't think we need to worry too much. -- Duy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html