Am 09.02.22 um 23:48 schrieb Junio C Hamano: > René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> writes: > >> The number of files is relatively low and they aren't huge, right? > > As long as it is expected to fit on the command line, that's fine. > But if the question is "it is OK to add a new option with known > limitation", then it should be stated a bit differently. I asked this question to find out if writing the files to $TMPDIR and adding them with --add-file instead of with --add-file-with-content would be feasible in patches 3 to 6. git archive would not have to be changed in that case. >>> This will throw another monkey wrench to Konstantin's plan [*] to >>> make "git archive" output verifiable with the signature on original >>> Git objects, but it is not a new problem ;-) >>> >>> >>> [Reference] >>> >>> * https://lore.kernel.org/git/20220207213449.ljqjhdx4f45a3lx5@meerkat.local/ >> >> I don't see the conflict: If an untracked file is added to an archive >> using --add-file, --add-file-with-content, or ZIP or tar then we'd >> *want* the verification against a signed commit or tag to fail, no? A >> different signature would be required for the non-tracked parts. > > Yes, which is exactly how this (and existing --add-file) makes > Konstantin's plan much less useful. People added untracked files to archives before --add-file existed. --add-file-with-content could be used to add the .GIT_ARCHIVE_SIG file. Additional untracked files would need a manifest to specify which files are (not) covered by the signed commit/tag. Or the .GIT_ARCHIVE_SIG files could be added just after the signed files as a rule, before any other untracked files, as some kind of a separator. Just listing untracked files and verifying the others might still be useful. Warning about untracked files shadowing tracked ones would be very useful. Some equivalent to the .GIT_ARCHIVE_SIG file containing a signature of the untracked files could optionally be added at the end to allow full verification -- but would require signing at archive creation time. René
