Re: Adding files to a git-archive when it is generated, and whats the best way to find out what branch a commit is on?

From: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Date: Jul 29, 2009, 08:41 UTC
Message-ID: <adf1fd3d0907290141v24cf129eue3939bf1afd518d2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9b18b3110907290115v1f30eeat748631bb09f92517@mail.gmail.com>

2009/7/29 demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>:

Show 15 quoted lines

> I was wondering if anybody had any suggestions on a sane way to add a
> file to a git-archive when it is being produced.
>
> For  instance build procedures that expect to be run inside of a git
> WD wont work if built from an archived version of the tree. Being able
> to provide a file of additional data to the archive package would be a
> very convenient way to work around this.
>
> Ideally id like to be able to specify a set of additional files to
> include in the archive as part of the git-archive command line
> interface, but I'd be nearly as a happy with almost any solution other
> than the one I came up with, which is to use archive to generate a tar
> file, then use tar to append the additional files to the tar, and then
> compress it. This process turns out to be quite slow in comparison to
> producing a compressed archive directly from git-archive.

Then I don't know. It is exactly the way it is done in git.git itself, look the dist target in the makefile.

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> Another question is whether anyone has any advice on the best way to
> find out the "best" branch an arbitrary commit is on. Where best can
> be flexibly definied to handle commits that are reachable from
> multiple branches.  I have hacked a solution involving git-log and
> grep, but it performs quite poorly. I was wondering if there is a
> better solution.

The "best" tag is easy: git describe commit. For branches I think you could use "git name-ref --refs=refs/heads/* commit", because git describe does not have a --branches flag.

HTH, Santi