Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 2/2] gitweb: append short hash ids to snapshot files

Mark Rada [off-list ref] writes:

This was a manifestation of a suggestion from Jakub:

quoted

Second, I'd rather have better names for snapshots than using full SHA-1.
For snapshot of 'v1.5.0' of repository 'repo.git' I'd prefer for snapshot
to be named 'repo-v1.5.0', and for snapshot of 'next' branch of the same

I think I've already said "Don't use $full_hash but if the user gave you
descriptive e.g. v1.5.0 in $hash just use it", which I think matches what
Jakub said above.

quoted

project to be named for example 'repo-next-20090909', or perhaps
'repo-next-2009-09-10T09:16:18' or 'repo-next-20090909-g5f6b0ff',
or 'repo-v1.6.5-rc0-164-g5f6b0ff'.

I do not particularly care about these, except that if the user asked for
'next', that string should be in the name somewhere, so the last one is
unnacceptable to me.  I'd rather vote for naming it just 'repo-next', as
if I were writing a robot that goes once-a-day to next and download, I
would likely to be doing it like this:

	D=`date +'%Y-%m-%d'` && mkdir "$D" && cd "$D" || exit
        wget ...snapshot-url-for-next-branch...
	wget ...snapshot-url-for-some-other-branch...
	wget ...snapshot-url-for-even-some-other-repository...
	...

and I do not want any frills other than what I _asked_ gitweb to give me,
which is "this repository, this branch".

But that is just my personal preference.  Treat it as no heavier than a
feature request from a random list participant.  It does not carry any
more weight than that merely because it comes from me.

For me, there are two fates that snapshots will end up with: being deleted
as soon as I have unrolled the contents, or long term archiving. For the
latter case, it is nice to have an idea of when it came from, though I
guess I should have appended a date in that case... ¯\(°_o)/¯

What date do you mean?  The commit date?  Or download date?

As long as it is clear which revision the snapshot came from, I do not
think anything fancier is necessary.

Besides, don't the paths in the archive have the timestamp of the commit
object?

If you are talking about download date for archival use, I think the
timestamp of the archive file itself is sufficient, and the person who is
downloading can (re)name the result in whatever way he wants.