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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 4, 2011, 02:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20110804022903.GA3388@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vwret6hgj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:25:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> > 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.

If the intent of the option is "write plain-vanilla ustar" (I really hope it doesn't need to be "plain-vanilla 4.3BSD tar"), then I think we would do better to have a new --format type. Because from the OP's perspective, it's not "drop this header that I don't like" but "make something compatible with older versions of tar".

-Peff