Re: Feature request: Add --mtime option to git archive
- From
René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
- Date
- Feb 17, 2023, 20:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <83635ee4-02a2-dea7-38fa-c7b65c30c897@web.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAHQZ30Dq1_vdJj_hakqXKFUbuqn9ysNsw-zzN83RmUVbibA3Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Am 17.02.23 um 16:43 schrieb Raul Rangel:
Show 23 quoted lines
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 7:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> 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).And how are you now going to tell the current time on a remote git server? ;)
>>> 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".
Yes, 21st century artifacts being sent back in time looks a bit strange. GNU tar and bsdtar provide option -m to ignore mtimes when extracting.
Show 6 quoted lines
>> 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.
git archive already records root as user and group.
>> 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.
I find it quite convincing as well.
René