Re: git archive should use vendor extension in pax header

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 28, 2016, 08:13 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1601280906340.2964@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <20160127234512.GA5453@fuz.su>

Hi Robert,

[I am not going to re-Cc: the dropped email addresses; please note that it is pretty much frowned upon on this mailing list if you do not reply-to-all and might affect your conversation.]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, fuz@fuz.su wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:31:15PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
>
> > Users can always go back to the original format.  At least I don't
> > expect this new format becoming the default too quickly.

This is the most crucial issue here, as far as I am concerned: there are already tons of .zip files out there that were created by git archive, and there will inevitably be loads of tons more *having the current pax header format*.

So tools wanting to deal with Git archives will have to handle those as well, i.e. do *precisely* as René suggested and use get-tar-commit-id. As such, the value of changing the format *now* is a bit like closing the barn's door after pretty much all of the horses left (except the old one that has a few troubles getting up in the morning but that is too nice to the kids to shoot).

> Sure thing.  If this is going to be implemented, I would add options
> to choose what / what style of metadata to include.

Why not put your money where your mouth is? I.e. get your head down into the code and come up with a patch (because otherwise it is unlikely that your idea will go anywhere)?

Ciao, Johannes