Clean up "Writing consistent snapshots" section #187
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* Match how metadata and target filenames are referred to in the detailed client workflow, i.e. filename.ext -> FILENAME.EXT * Remove suggestion to write a version of the root metadata without a version prefix. We only ever look for version-prefixed version of root metadata. Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock <[email protected]>
mnm678
reviewed
Sep 21, 2021
|
|
||
| On the other hand, consistent target files should be written to | ||
| non-volatile storage as digest.filename.ext. This means that if the | ||
| non-volatile storage as HASH.FILENAME.EXT. This means that if the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general I like DIGEST better than HASH, but I know that we use HASH elsewhere in the spec. No need to change it unless others feel strongly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used HASH because that's what we use in section 5.7.3 of the detailed client workflow and the name of the attribute in metadata is 'hashes'.
* More cleanups of filename.ext -> FILENAME.EXT * More use of RFC-2119 keywords to clarify repository handling of consistent snapshots * Link to CONSISTENT_SNAPSHOT attribute definition * Clarify that all versions of root metadata MUST be kept for outdated clients to be able to update Signed-off-by: Joshua Lock <[email protected]>
|
Thanks for the review @mnm678, I've addressed your comments and clarified some more of the text in the "Writing consistent snapshots" section. Please take a look. |
mnm678
previously approved these changes
Sep 22, 2021
|
@lukpueh @trishankatdatadog could we get a second review here? Thank you! |
Integrate suggestion from code review to make the sentence clearer. Co-authored-by: lukpueh <[email protected]>
lukpueh
previously approved these changes
Nov 9, 2021
mnm678
previously approved these changes
Nov 9, 2021
trishankatdatadog
previously approved these changes
Nov 9, 2021
Co-authored-by: Trishank Karthik Kuppusamy <[email protected]>
joshuagl
dismissed stale reviews from trishankatdatadog, mnm678, and lukpueh
via
75b1bff
|
Thanks for the suggestion Trishank. I've committed it and dismissed all reviews. Please take another look all @mnm678 @lukpueh @trishankatdatadog |
mnm678
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
client workflow, i.e. filename.ext -> FILENAME.EXT
version prefix. We only ever look for version-prefixed version of root
metadata.
Fixes #184