Any reason this is still generating bags with version = 0.97?

[axfelix]

I've noticed that this library creates bags with version 0.97 still -- any reason it can't be bumped to 1.0?

[acdha]

Just time to test it - it’s been on my todo list for a while

[axfelix]

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]

Are there any news on this issue? It would be good if the library can actually generate bags based on the current spec.

[WhenSkiesAbove]

I'm going to third this. Any news on this?

Thanks!

[jens-st]

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]

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.

[edsu]

@acdha is there work remaining on #188?

[acdha]

@acdha is there work remaining on #188?

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]

Makes sense. The rebase was already done, so you can cross that off the list :-)