Re: git-archive's wrong documentation: really write pax rather than tar

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 06:56:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > It might be a bit more obvious to find if we actually had a
>> > --no-pax-header option, though.
>> 
>> Yeah, we would need to make sure that --no-pack-header causes a barf
>> for other backends, though. "struct archiver_args" right now seems to have
>> compression_level but I think it should just have "const char **" that is
>> interpreted by backends.
>
> Actually, it is relevant for zip, too. The option should really be
> called "--no-commit-id" or something similar. I don't think it's as big
> a deal with zip (because there is no compatibility issue), but you may
> want to omit the header for other reasons (e.g., because you know it
> doesn't point to a commit that is public).

Hmm, perhaps. It indeed is an implementation detail of the tar backend
that the commit object name is stored in pax header, so --no-commit-id
might make sense from "git" point of view, but from the point of view of
OP that started this thread, he wouldn't care what that extra information
is --- it can be a commit object name or it can be phase of the moon when
the archive was made --- he just wants the extra header dropped.

So I dunno.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]