From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:43:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add git-archive-tree
Message-ID: <cda58cb80609050443j26f2af21q6f75b2b4042c7b15@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vwt8jl1dv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

2006/9/5, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>:
> Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>
> > Junio C Hamano schrieb:
> >...
> > Well, this is just _one_ of the positions I've taken on this topic, I
> > have to admit.  Franck then convinced me that merging downloader and
> > archiver into one command is nice for users (less commands to remember,
> > keeps existing --remote option) even if it doesn't make sense
> > technically, because their implementations have nothing in common.
>
> Ah, I was not following the thread closely and I agree with you
> and Franck now in that smaller number of commands the better.
> (IOW, download-archive in my 3-item list is not needed in the
> end user UI and can be implemented as "git-archive-tree
> --remote=<repo>).
>

OK, I'm sending what I've been able to do so far. It has been done
before you sent some feedbacks one day ago, so please forgive me if,
for the moment, I called "git-archive" instead of "git-archive-tree"
or if I missed some of your points; I'll change that.

I'm sending 2 patches, which are sent to get some comments. They're
not for inclusion in anyways.

The pathspec area has been pick up from Rene's initial patch. I have
not enough git's internal knowledge to improve it. But I'll be glad to
look at this later (if you have any clues for starting point BTW).

-- 
               Franck