Re: timestamps not git-cloned

From: Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 30, 2008, 01:14 UTC
Message-ID: <2e24e5b90811291714s4388289bwa4b2e22ff1f75a83@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200811291117.01655.trast@student.ethz.ch>

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>> Chris Frey wrote:
>> >If this is the important bit, perhaps git-archive could be changed
>> >to create tarballs with file timestamps based on their commit dates.
>>
>> Based on the principle of least surprise, I'd consider this a rather good
>> idea.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, this would make git-archive rather more
> expensive than it is now: Tree objects do not record any timestamps,

How many people use git-archive and how many times a day do they use it? For example, kernel.org seems to put out linux-2.x.y.z.tar.bz2 once every 2 to 7 days.

The overhead of this new option (and certainly it should be an option, not the default) should be measured not against the old running time, but against the frequency of usage of the tool. Look at it on those time scales, it may not be a big deal.

By all accounts, this overhead will not affect the "giterate" [meaning git-literate ;-)] people too much.