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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 4, 2011, 02:25 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwret6hgj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110804020054.GA1947@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 06:56:41PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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.