Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> First, it would be consistent with how ordinary archivers such as tar
> or zip are used, where you have to specify list of files to archive
> (in our case this list is HEAD). Second, I'd rather not accidentally
> dump binary to terminal: "git archive [HEAD]" dumps archive to standard
> output.
So does "cat". I do not agree with your second point.
While I somewhat see the similarity argument, your first point, I am not
sure if it is relevant. It is not like "tar or zip allows us to say what
files to archive, but git-archive doesn't and it always archives HEAD";
you are saying "they require us to specify, so should we".
But I do not see a strong reason not to default to HEAD. The case that
would make difference would be to differentiate among
$ git archive HEAD TAIL
$ git archive HEAD -- TAIL
$ git archive -- HEAD TAIL
i.e. what if you happen to have a tracked content called HEAD. I didn't
check the current command line parser in git-archive understands the "--"
convention for that, but it is not a rocket science to add it if it
doesn't.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html