Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 6, 2022. It is now read-only.

Add some explanation to the README #8

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2018
Merged

Add some explanation to the README #8

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
# Discussion: UnixFS Specification

This repo is used to discuss and draft a specification for the next version of UnixFS (the DAG node format used to represent *files and directories* on the IPFS network). You can find and participate in discussion about desired features in [the issues](https://github.com/ipfs/ipld-unixfs/issues) and an [initial specification draft in PR #2](https://github.com/ipfs/ipld-unixfs/pull/2).

When the specification draft is complete, it will be moved to the `ipfs/specs` repo at https://github.com/ipfs/specs/tree/master/unixfs and this repo will likely be re-dedicated to building the **Go** implementation of UnixFS.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This part is not certain, so let's leave this paragraph out for now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Mr0grog Mr0grog Apr 30, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Which part, adding it to the specs repo or repurposing this repo?

When I talked with @whyrusleeping on Slack, it sounded like he was saying both were pretty certain (also that it might make sense to rename this repo to go-*, but that was not at all certain). @whyrusleeping, did I misunderstand?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not part of this discussion. @whyrusleeping specifically asked me to create this repo for the point of moving the spec along. He never mentioned anything about moving it to ipfs/specs to me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Mr0grog Mr0grog Apr 30, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. It sounds like there are some parts of this that people have different understandings of. This seems like a good opportunity to get that cleared up.

So…

  • Is the intent to copy this back to ipfs/specs/unixfs (when it’s ready, whatever stage of finalization that may be) correct/agreed on?
  • What does everyone understand to be the future of this repo after a draft for the next version of the UnixFS spec is done? (If this stays separate from ipfs/specs, what does that mean for future work on other specs that are currently housed there?)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The right thing for us to do, in terms of project organization, is to make the spec output of this repo become a part of the main specs repo, and this repo to be transitioned into a go implementation of said spec.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay.