-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
Metadata #60
Comments
How was the metadata object going to be linked in? Could the IPLD stuff replace the Metadata object type? |
@eminence definitely for some stuff, but we should still have a clear format for FS attrs. |
The FS in IPFS is currently not really usable as it lacks a few rather important flags and information. So in order to get it right next time nothing should be forgotten. Here is a list of metadata attributes that modern filesystems are using with a short discussion whether it makes sense in IPFS. Please share your opinion :)
|
Optional modification timestamps are a must imo, and the question is:
I believe that modification times should be captured as precisely as the most precise filesystems do it (nanosecond-accuracy afaik). |
The reason I proposed the split secs / subsecs specification was because while sub-second resolution is possible on several filesystems, it is not prevalent. Thus it greatly simplifies random implementations to have a mandatory second portion and an optional subsecond portion. I.e. my proposal is:
|
@mib-kd743naq I would consider sub-second resolutions prevalent:
|
@mib-kd743naq golang's own time library has support for negative epoch times, and NTFS timestamps start at January 1, 1601 (UTC) [1]. I don't know why anyone would have files with timestamps like that, but I would want them to be able represent them in ipfs and restore them on filesystems that support it. [1] https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/188768/info-working-with-the-filetime-structure |
The unixfs datastructure has an object type called
Metadata
-- the goal was to put:and more in there. it may be useful to discuss more relevant things here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: