Re: Feature request: Add --mtime option to git archive

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

 



On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 7:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > A similar option in is to simply start using "0" in the meantime, like:
> >
> > diff --git a/archive.c b/archive.c
> > index 81ff76fce9..48d89785c3 100644
> > --- a/archive.c
> > +++ b/archive.c
> > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ static void parse_treeish_arg(const char **argv,
> >               archive_time = commit->date;
> >       } else {
> >               commit_oid = NULL;
> > -             archive_time = time(NULL);
> > +             archive_time = 0;
> >       }
> >
> >       tree = parse_tree_indirect(&oid);
> >
> > Nobody will complain about changing the byte-for-byte format, since by definition it
> > was already changing once per second (cue somebody complaining that they
> > have been using LD_PRELOAD tricks to simulate --mtime).
> >
> > I do wonder if people would complain (both with the patch above and with
> > brian's proposal) that the resulting tarballs extract everything with a
> > date in 1970. That's not functionally a problem, but it looks kind of
> > weird in "ls -l".
>
> And owned by root:root ;-)

I fully support both of those easy changes. Only reason I proposed
--mtime was that https://reproducible-builds.org/docs/archives/
recommends setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, but honestly for my purposes I
would always use 0 and root:root.

>
> I am sure people would complain.  What matters is if these
> complaints have merit, and in this case, I doubt it.  I especially
> like your "it has been already changing once per second" reasoning
> for this change.



[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]

  Powered by Linux