From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:13:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add git-archive-tree
Message-ID: <cda58cb80609021313p5156a14du4895e53387dd24dc@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <44F982BD.1050509@lsrfire.ath.cx>

2006/9/2, Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>:
> The two patches I sent are what I have been able to come up with so far.
> The next step would be to add archive-neutral upload and download support.
>
> Having thought a bit about it I propose to keep git-archive-tree for
> local operations, only.  It can be called by the uploader just like

Well I don't see why putting the remote operations in an other file. I
was more thinking on something like this:

git-archive --format=<fmt> [--remote=<repo>] <tree-ish> [path...]

This main porcelain function would call directly functions provided by
archivers lib. We will need to define an API which git-archive will
use for local operations.

Symetrically, on the sever side we would have:

git-upload-archive --format=<fmt> <repo> [path...]

used by git-daemon. It will deal with protocol, paths and use archiver's lib.

Eventually, we would have 2 commands:

git-archive
git-upload-archive

and get ride of

git-tar-tree
git-zip-tree
git-upload-tar
git-upload-zip

> git-tar-tree is now called by git-upload-tar.  As Franck suggested, the
> uploader should allow the list of archive formats it supports to be
> restricted in a config file.  The range of allowed compression levels
> should also be configurable.
>
> Does it make sense to change the wire protocol to simply send the
> command line options one by one?

That would make sense if the number of options grow up. Currently the
remote protocol had been written by Junio, I just pick up that part
from git-tar-tree and put it into git-archive. But if we allow
pathspec for remote operations, then  we need to send them to the
uploader.

>
> The interface could be something like this:
>
>    git-download-archive <repo> <git-archive-tree options...>
>    git-upload-archive <directory>
>
> Or, if the big number of git command names is a concern:
>

I think it is, IMHO. And that's why I think we could have only one
command for building localy/remotely archive whatever the format.
git-archive should be a main procelain command, and we should get rid
of git-{tar,zip}-tree commands.

-- 
               Franck

-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.742177