2009/9/10 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx>: > Dnia czwartek 10. września 2009 21:46, John Tapsell napisał: >> 2009/9/10 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx>: > >> > 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. >> >> That could be fixed by outputting to a file. git format-patch outputs >> to a file, so why wouldn't git achieve? > > "git format-patch" outputs to files because it generates _multiple_ > files; generating single patch is special case. Also git-format-patch > can generate file names from patch (commit) subject; it is not the case > for "git archive" (what name should it use?). What if it used the current (or topleve) directory name? Wouldn't that work in most cases? For cases it doesn't work, the user can just rename or specify the output name, so it would be no worse than the current case. John -- 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