You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Any reason this is still generating bags with version = 0.97? #141
Hey, sorry for the bother, but any chance this is coming soon? We're considering just writing out a 1.0 to override it but that doesn't exactly seem like best practices...
Officially, BagIt version 1.0 is a stable RFC / standard for over 5 years now, 0.97 were only drafts in several iterations. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8493/
Please consider supporting 1.0 with bagit-python.
Officially, BagIt version 1.0 is a stable RFC / standard for over 5 years now, 0.97 were only drafts in several iterations. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8493/ Please consider supporting 1.0 with bagit-python.
As one of the authors on both, rest assured that we're aware of BagIt 1.0. The delay has simply been lack of time / volunteers to work on it as I no longer support projects using BagIt and its maintenance is no longer part of my duties, although I do try to find time to work on it. Recently @edsu has been working on that in #188 and if you have time to help with that, I think it would be good. There is one test case in the conformance suite which needs review but because it's related to handling of inconsistent whitespace I suspect that may be related to Git helpfully trying to normalize that file for me and wanted to review it.
I wanted to rebase & review it, and do some tests to confirm that other tools validate its 1.0 bags but I suspect that will be a formality. I've just been trying to find time to actually do any of that.
Activity
acdha commentedon Oct 29, 2019
Just time to test it - it’s been on my todo list for a while
axfelix commentedon Jan 14, 2020
Hey, sorry for the bother, but any chance this is coming soon? We're considering just writing out a 1.0 to override it but that doesn't exactly seem like best practices...
BartChris commentedon Feb 10, 2023
Are there any news on this issue? It would be good if the library can actually generate bags based on the current spec.
WhenSkiesAbove commentedon Mar 9, 2023
I'm going to third this. Any news on this?
Thanks!
jens-st commentedon Jun 18, 2025
Officially, BagIt version 1.0 is a stable RFC / standard for over 5 years now, 0.97 were only drafts in several iterations.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8493/
Please consider supporting 1.0 with bagit-python.
acdha commentedon Jun 18, 2025
As one of the authors on both, rest assured that we're aware of BagIt 1.0. The delay has simply been lack of time / volunteers to work on it as I no longer support projects using BagIt and its maintenance is no longer part of my duties, although I do try to find time to work on it. Recently @edsu has been working on that in #188 and if you have time to help with that, I think it would be good. There is one test case in the conformance suite which needs review but because it's related to handling of inconsistent whitespace I suspect that may be related to Git helpfully trying to normalize that file for me and wanted to review it.
edsu commentedon Jun 20, 2025
@acdha is there work remaining on #188?
acdha commentedon Jun 20, 2025
I wanted to rebase & review it, and do some tests to confirm that other tools validate its 1.0 bags but I suspect that will be a formality. I've just been trying to find time to actually do any of that.
edsu commentedon Jun 23, 2025
Makes sense. The rebase was already done, so you can cross that off the list :-)
jens-st commentedon Oct 13, 2026
Any progress on supporting BagIt 1.0?